De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.

Case Title Duty Date

1. AVELINO O. ANGELES et. al vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAÑEZ Duty to Court 15-Jan-09

2. SPOUSES PADILLA vs. ISAURO A. VELASCO, et.al Duty to Client 19-Jan-09

3. DOMINGA RUIZ, et.al vs. CIRILA DELOS SANTOS Duty to Client 27-Jan-09

4. TANU REDDI vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR., Duty to Court/Client 30-Jan-09
5. OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA Duty to Client 30-Jan-09

6. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRA

ADMINISTRATOR
TOR vs. MARLON ROQUE Duty to Court 4-Feb-09

7. ANGALAN VS. DELANTE Duty to Client 6-Feb-09

Duty to Court/Legal
8. PLUS BUILDERS, INC. vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR. 11-Feb-09
Profession
9. EDGARDO D. AREOLA vs. JUDGE BAYANI Duty to Society 18-Feb-09
Duty to
10. EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE Society/Legal 23-Feb-09

11. CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE Profession

Duty to
27-Feb-09
RAMOS-VILLALON Court/Client/Society
12. CHRISTOPHER D. MANAOG vs. ARNEL JOSE A. RUBIO Duty to Court 13-Feb-09
13. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC. VS. ATTY. LEOVIGILDO H. MIJARES Duty to
20-Nov-09
III Society/Court/Client
14. FRANCISCO A. LABAO vs. LOLITA N. FLORES et al., Duty to Client 15-Nov-10
15. ATTY. LEONOR M. ALCANTA
ALCANTARA
RA et.al. v ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE
Duty to Client 23-Nov-10
 VERA
16. MANUEL YUHICO v ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ Duty to Society 23-Nov-10

17. LORNA M. VILLAUE

VILLAUEVA
VA v JUDGE APOLIARI
APOLIARIO
O M. BUAYA Duty to Society
18. SPOUSES VIRGIOLIO AND ANGELINA ARANDA v ATTY.
Duty to Client 15-Dec-10
EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA
Duty to the Legal
19. ATTY. JONNA M. ESCABARTE v MS. LOIDA J. GERNABE
Profession
20. JOVITO S. OLAZO v DANTE O. TINGA Duty to Society 7-Dec-10
Code of Judicial
21. CARMEN EDAÑO vs. Judge FATIMA G. ASDALA 6-Dec-10
Conduct
22. ATTY. NORLINDA R. AMANTE-DESCALLA
AMANTE-DESCALLAR
R vs.HON. REINERIO Code of Judicial
15-Dec-10
(ABRAHAM) B. Conduct
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court

 AVELINO O. ANGELES
ANGELES et. al vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAÑEZ
 A.C. No. 7860, 576
576 SCRA 90, Januar
Januaryy 15, 2009
CARPIO, J.:

 This is a complaint for disbarment for notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute
Sale" without a notarial commission and in the absence of the affiants.

Facts:
 Atty. Amado Ibañez allegedly notarized an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale"
 without having the authority to notarize such as he did not have a commission as notary public at
that time. The petitioners further denied executing the said document or, that they ever appeared
before respondent Atty. Ibañez for this purpose. He stated that his failure to require the presence
of the parties to the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" is wholly justified because of the
assurance of complainant Rosalina Angeles that the signatures appearing in the said document were
indeed those of her co-heirs. The respondent also alleged that almost all the complainants
submitted their residence certificates, the numbers of which were recorded in the
acknowledgement portion of the document.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of
the affiants.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court held that respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in
the absence of the affiants. Respondent himself admits that he merely relied on the representation
of Rosalina Angeles that the signatures appearing on the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute
Sale" subject of the present complaint are those of her co-heirs. Respondent claims that he reposed
confidence upon Rosalina Angeles because she is his confidential secretary. Unfortunately for
respondent, he cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his recklessness and his failure
to comply with the requirements of the law by relying on his confidential secretary.
 Time and again, the Supreme Court have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public
that the affiants must personally appear before them. The physical presence of the affiants enables
the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to
ascertain that the document is the parties’ free act and deed.  Under the facts and circumstances of
the case, respondent’s notarial commission should not only be suspended but respondent must also
be suspended from the practice of law.

 Adjudication:
 The Court finds respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez guilty and suspends him from the
practice of law for one year, revokes his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and prohibits him
from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client 

SPOUSES PADILLA  vs  vs. ISAURO A. VELASCO, et.al

G.R. No. 169956, 576 SCRA 219, January 19, 2009
NACHURA, J ..::

 This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Decision of the Court of Appeals.

Facts:
Respondents are the heirs of Dr. Artemio A. Velasco who died single and without any issue
on January 22, 1949. During his lifetime, Artemio acquired a parcel of land. In October 1987, the
Padilla spouses entered the said property as trustees by virtue of a deed of sale executed by the
Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of spouses Bartolome Solomon, Jr. and Teresita Padilla.
Respondents demanded that petitioners vacate the property, but the latter refused. Because the
parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, actions were instituted and trial proceedings
commenced accordingly. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the respondents
ordering the petitioners to vacate the land and restore possession thereof to the respondents, to
render an accounting of the proceeds from the crop harvested therefrom starting September 1987

up to the time
structures they the property isthereon.
constructed returnedThe
to the respondents,
Padilla Spouses and to remove
appealed to theatCA
theirbut
expense
to noallavail.
the
Hence, this petition claiming that their counsel, Atty. Asinas failed to present other witnesses,
additional documents that may be essential to overturn the decision in their favor.

Issue:
 Whether or not the serious illness of a counsel constitutes excusable negligence or
incompetency to warrant a new trial.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled that mistakes of counsel as to the competency of witnesses, the
sufficiency and relevancy of evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, as well as his
failure to introduce certain evidence or to summon witnesses and to argue the case, are not proper
grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetence of counsel be so great that his client is prejudiced
and prevented from fairly presenting his case. In this case, the illness of petitioners’ counsel and his
alleged failure to present additional evidence during the trial of the case do not constitute sufficient
ground for a new trial.

 Adjudication:
denied for lack of merit.
 The instant petition is denied
 

 
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

DOMINGA RUIZ, et.al vs.

 vs. CIRILA DELOS SANTOS 
G.R. No. 166386, 576 SCRA 404, January 27, 2009
 AUST
 AUSTRIRIA-
A-MA
MART
RTIN
INEZ
EZ,, J ..: :  

 This is a petition for review on certiorari  and

 and mandamus  seeking that the Resolutions of the
Court
petitionoffor
Appeals be, prohibition
certiorari  reversed and
andsetmandamus 
aside; and thatbefore
 filed
 filed the CA beherein
it by directed to give due course to the
petitioners.

Facts:
Petitioners in this case, Dominga, Apolonia, Florencio, Cornelia, Tomasa and Olimpio were
the original owners of seven parcels of land in Cavite. Cirila delos Santos, herein respondent, is a
duly licensed real estate broker. Sometime in 1995, Olimpio, one of the petitioners herein, gave
respondent the plan of the subject property and verbally authorized her to sell the same.
 Thereafter, respondent
respondent referred in writing the
the subject property to Odessa Anti
Antiporda,
porda, a realtor and a
fellow estate broker. Antiporda in turn referred the subject property to one Alfred Tantiansu.
Olimpio then gave respondent a written authority to sell the same. Olimpio and Cirila was not able

to agree
effort as with
a realthe amount
estate of that
broker commission the latter
she was able is entitled
to bring to consummation
about the get for because of
it is
thethrough her
sale of the
subject property. Due to the failure of the petitioners to pay the said commission, full-blown trial
on the merits ensued. The Regional Trial Court is rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff
[respondent] and against the defendants [petitioners].
Hence, the petitioners herein appealed but failed to pay the required appeal fee due to
mistake and excusable negligence of their counsel. Atty. Ang, the petitioner’s counsel admitted that
it was through his negligence that the appeal was belatedly filed. He claimed that because some of
the petitioners were abroad, it was difficult to communicate with them.

Issue:
 Whether or not the failure ounsel to perfect the appeal binds petitioners.
failure of petitioners’ ccounsel

Ruling:
 Yes. The failure of petitioners’ counsel to perfect the appeal binds petitioners. It is settled
that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence, and omission of their counsel. While,
exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of counsel, the factual circumstances in
the present case do not give us sufficient reason to suspend the rules of the most mandatory
character. Petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely faultless.
Records show that at that time, while some of the petitioners were already abroad, Dominga
and Tomasa were still living in Cavite. Cornelia who lives abroad was able to receive a copy of the
decision and was able to make an overseas call to Atty. Ang to express her desire to appeal the
decision. However, neither Dominga nor Tomasa who only live in Cavite, took steps to call Atty.
 Ang at the earliest possible time to protect their interest. No prudent party would leave the fate of
his case completely to his lawyer. It is the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to
be constantly posted about the case. Thus, the Supreme Court find that there was participatory
 

negligence on the part of petitioners, which would not relieve them of the consequence of the
negligence of their counsel.

 Adjudication:
 The petition was denied.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court/Client

TANU REDDI vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR.,

 A.C. No. 7027 January 30, 20
2009
09
PER CURIAM :

Facts:
Complainant Tanu Reddi, an American citizen of Indian descent and a practicing
endodontist
 Jr. [dentist]
for allegedly in New
deceiving her York, seeks him
into giving the disbarment
a total of USof$respondent Atty.
3,000,000 for theDiosdado C. Sebrio,
purpose of, among
other things, purchasing several real estate properties for resale. Inspired by the charitable works of
her parents, complainant decided
decided to build a hospital in the Philippines.
Philippines. However she needed more
revenue to finance the said undertaking. Through the advice of her assistant Immaculada Luistro,
complainant ventured into the real estate in the Philippines. It through this business hat he came to
know and ask for legal advice from respondent.
Respondent advised that complainant cannot own real estate in the Philippines since she is
an alien, thus the remedy is to put up a corporation, and this corporation will be the one who will
acquire the land. Three corporations then were created. Through the instance of respondent and
financed by complainants, several lots were purchased.

enteredHowever,
into werecomplainant was the
all bogus, since unaware
sellersthat
werethe
nottransactions [sale of
the real owners of the
several
land.lands] she was
This fact had
known to the respondent since he is the one who arranged the transactions.

Issue: 
 Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: 
 Yes, the commissioner who investigated the case of respondent [result of the investigation
 was adopted by the Supreme Court] found respondent to have committed fraudulent acts which
constitute violations of the lawyer’s oath and numerous provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offered
properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was dealing with the
true owners thereof. Respondent violated CANON 1 which states: “A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and for legal processes.”
He likewise violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Respondent violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the
CPR, and Rule 15.06 of the CPR.
 The court found that respondent’s dishonest and deceitful conduct with respect to the
intended transactions, real property acquisitions which turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently
established. Explained the court, "to reiterate, by his own admission, respondent received a total of
US$544,8288 from complainant, which he could not properly account for. The orchestrated manner
US$544,82
in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking
advantage of complainant’s naivete in the workings of the real estate business in the Philippines,
depict a man whose character falls way, way short of the exacting standards required of him as a
member of the bar and an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no longer fit to remain as
 

such. The court in admonition reiterates that if the practice of law, however, is to remain an
honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master
its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them.
 The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning."

 Adjudication: 
Respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is disbarred. He is ordered to return to complainant the
amount of US$544,828.
US$544,828.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs.  vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA

 A.C. No. 7024, 577
577 SCRA 93, Januar
Januaryy 30, 2009
BRION, J .:

 This is a complaint for

for disbarment.

Facts: The complainant alleged that she retained the services of the respondent as her counsel in
case filed against her and her co-defendants for the collection of a sum of money amounting to
P1.3 Million. Her defense was that it was the plaintiff who actually owed her P800, 000.00. She
claimed that she had the evidence to prove this defense at the trial and that respondent agreed to
handle the case and duly entered his appearance as counsel after securing his acceptance fee.
However, after filing the Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully inform her of
further developments in the case. She only heard about the case when there was already a decision
against her and her co-defendants. She even belatedly learned that the respondent had sought his
discharge as counsel without her knowledge and consent. After the court denied the respondent's
motion to withdraw from the case, the complainant claimed that the respondent represented her
interests
the in a half-hearted
pleadings. Allegedly, manner, resultingfailed
the respondent in the to
grant of the oppose
properly plaintiff'sthe
motion for and
motion judgment on
she was
thereafter deprived of the chance to present her evidence. Execution of the court's decision
followed, resulting in the sale of her house and lot at public auction despite her efforts to reverse
the judgment with the help of another lawyer. Thereafter, a third party to whom her property had
been mortgaged sued her.

Issue:
 Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that “"a lawyer shall serve his client with competen ce
and diligence." First, the respondent failed to contact his client about the developments of the case.
Second, assuming the non-payment of his legal services to be true, such failure should not be a
reason not to inform the client of an important development, or worse, to withhold vital
information from her. Third, the respondent failed to provide details on the developments that led
to the adverse rulings on the interrogatories/admissions and the judgment on the pleadings.
However, the Supreme Court cannot also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in
light of the complainant's own contributory faults. The complainant's failing in this regard is her
failure to inform her counsel of her change of business address, a serious lapse but one that a
resourceful counsel could have easily handled.

 Adjudication:
 Atty. Gerardo F. Lara
Lara is suspended from the
the practice of law for
for a period of thr
three
ee (3) months.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MARLON Roque

 A.M No. P-06-2200,
P-06-2200, 580 SCRA 321,
321, February 44,, 2009
En Banc CARPIO MORALES, J ..::

 This is an administrative
administrative matter against Cl
Clerks
erks of Court M
Marlon
arlon Roque and An
Anita
ita Nunag.

Facts:Respondents stand charged for negligence in their duty to monitor and supervise Cashier
 Aurelia Lugue in the management
management of court funds. Their failure to monitor the
the financial transactions
of the Court had resulted in the shortage in the Fiduciary Fund (FF) account in the amount of
P605,025.00. Roque, for his part, alleged that to the best of his knowledge and despite his limited
background in accounting, he did his “very best” to closely supervise the financial transactions of
the office. In the discharge of this duty, he never noted any discrepancy reflected in the Monthly
Reports of Collections. Nunag, on the other hand, claimed that when she assumed as Clerk of
Court, she was not thoroughly familiar with accounting procedures and had no exposure to
bookkeeping and accounting work. She continued the accounting procedures and the practice of
Roque and Aurelia.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondents are guilty of Simple Negligence.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Supreme Court held that as accountable officers and custodians of the court’s
funds, respondents were duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of
their duties. It was their responsibility to ensure the correctness and legitimacy of every financial
transaction within their responsibility. The trust they reposed to Cashier Lugue cannot be a valid
defense. It was their duty to see to it that their subordinates performed their functions properly.
Further. Respondents’ lack or limited knowledge of accounting procedures does not exonerate
them. To credit such defense would
would set similarly situated employees to lig
lightly
htly discharge their dut
dutyy
of employing reasonable skill and diligence and thus evade administrative liability.

 Adjudication:
Respondents Marlon Roque and Anita G. Nunag guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and are
each fined the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

 Angalan vs. Atty. Delante

Delante
 A.C. No. 7181, 578 SCRA 113, February 6,
6, 2009
PER CURIAM :

 This is a complaint for

for gross vio
violation
lation of the Code of Professional Responsib
Responsibility.
ility.

Facts: The complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal. They allege that they are illiterate and
belong to the Samal Tribe. Angalan, Sanaan, and complainants owned a 9.102-hectare parcel of
land. On 15 April 1971, Angalan and complainants borrowed P15, 000 from Spouses
Eustaquio. To secure the loan, Angalan and complainants mortgaged their parcel of land. The
Spouses Eustaquio prepared a document   and asked Angalan and complainants to sign it. Angalan
and complainants affixed their thumb marks on the document. When complainants tried to pay the
loan and recover the land from the Spouses Eustaquio, the Spouses Eustaquio
refused. Complainants learned that the document which the Spouses Eustaquio prepared, and
 which complainants signed, was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. They also
learned that Navarro R. Eustaquio had transferred the title over the property to his name.
Complainants
recovering engaged
their property. the services
According of Atty. they
to complainants, Leonido C. the
engaged Delante forofthe
services purpose for
respondent of
the purpose of recovering their property from the Spouses Eustaquio. In violation of the trust and
confidence they reposed in him, respondent transferred the title over the property to his
name. According to respondent, complainants did not engage his services. His client from New
 York was the one who bought the property ffrom
rom the Spouses Eustaquio.
Eustaquio.

Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Leonido C. Delante is guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Delante is guilty of violating the canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and
confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are illiterate and that the
Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them. Complainants engaged the services of respondent in
the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of
complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of the property
to his name.
 The Supreme Court further ruled that respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Responsibility. Canon 16 states that lawyers
lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their
clients that may come into their possession. Respondent should have held in trust TCT No. T-9926
and returned demand.[24]  Instead of holding in trust the
the property to complainants upon demand.
property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to his name, (2)
 

refused to return the property to complainants, and (3) referred to complainants’ charges as
malicious and untruthful.

 Adjudication:
 The Court finds Atty. Leonido C. Delante guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred from the practice of law and his name stricken from
the Roll of Attorneys.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court/Legal Profession

PLUS BUILDERS, INC. vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.

 A.C. No. 7056, 578
578 SCRA 431, February
February 11, 2009
En Banc NACHURA, J .

 This is a motion for

for reconsideration of
of the Decision of th
thee Supreme Court.

Facts: On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
(PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers
Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez
Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, who
 were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s
clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was
elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainant’s rights over
the land. Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed
intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the
decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the
last,engage
to an action to unauthorized
in the quiet title despite the finality
practice of law,ofholding
the decision. Furthermore,
themselves out as hishepartners/associates
allowed non-lawyersin
the law firm. The Court then imposed a two-year suspension against respondent lawyer.
Respondent sought consideration and compassion for the issuance of the clearance
considering present economic financial difficulties and reiterating the fact that he was the sole
breadwinner in the family.

Issue:
a) Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of violating the Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
b) Whether or not respondent lawyer’s suspension of 2-years be modified.

Ruling:
a) Yes. Under the circumstances, the respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond the
legitimate means allowed by professional
professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his clie
client.
nt. These
are already uncalled
uncalled for mea
measures
sures to avoid the enforcement of final judgments
judgments of the MeTC and
RTC. In these attempts, the respondent violated RulRulee 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Pr Professional
ofessional
Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to “observe the ru les of procedure and. . . not
[to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.”   By his actions, the respondent used procedural
rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice, resulting in
prejudice to the winning parties in that case
2. The Court held that it must show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from
imposing the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondent’s
length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family
circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondent’s advanced age, among
other things, which have varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable
 

penalty. Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondent’s motion for reconsideration
and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, the Court is persuaded to extend a degree of
leniency towards him, suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law is thus imposed.

 Adjudication:
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is  partially
granted. The Decision is
hereby modified in that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society 

EDGARDO D. AREOLA (a.k.a. MOHAMMAD KAHDAFFY vs. JUDGE BAYANI

 A.M. No. RTJ-09-2163,
RTJ-09-2163, 579 SCRA 54
549,
9, February 18,
18, 2009
NACHURA, J ..::

 This is an administrative
administrative complaint filed by Edg
Edgardo
ardo D. Areola (a.k.a. M
Mohammad
ohammad Kahdaffy)
against Judge Bayani Y. Ilano.

Facts:
Edgardo D. Areola, Police Officer Manuel Bayaga and Antonio Bayaga were charged with
Murder. The case was raffled and re-raflled due to the retirement of the previous judge and
inhibition of another until the case was transferred to Branch 73, presided over by Judge Francisco
Querubin. On March 16, 2004, Judge Querubin issued an order granting the Motion for Bail of
PO3 Manuel Bayaga and Antonio Bayaga only and fixed the bail at P100, 000.00 each. On May 6,
2004, complainant filed a Manifestation stating therein that he should likewise be granted
bail. Upon motion of the complainant, Judge Querubin recuserecusedd himself so the case was aassigned
ssigned
to Branch 71, presided over by Judge Bayani Y. Ilano, herein respondent. Thereafter, Judge Ilano
also expressed that he was inhibiting from the case but pursuant to a Memorandum from the
Office of the Court
of the heinous crimes Administrator, he74)
court (Branch washad
compelled to handlefrom
earlier inhibited the case
the because
case. Onthe pairing
April 11, judge
2006,
complainant filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration which denied the
Urgent Motion for Admission
Admission to Bail. The complainant filed a Second Urgent Mo Motion
tion to Resolve
and to Grant Motion for Admission to Bail, and another Manifestation and Motion reiterating his
prayer to be admitted to bail.
Meanwhile, Judge Ilano issued an Order directing the transfer of the complainant from the
Rizal Provincial Jail to the Antipolo City Jail upon an urgent ex-parte
ex -parte motion filed by the Provincial
 Warden on even date. On September 15, 2006, Judge
Judge Ilano issued an Order denying Complain
Complainant’s
ant’s
Motion for Reconsideration.

Issues:
a)   Whether or not Judge Ilano violated Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
b)  Whether or not respondent judge violated Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.

Ruling:
a)   The Supreme Court found complainant’s charges against respondent Judge without basis.
 The orders which were adverse to the complainant pertained
pe rtained to the adjudicative function of
respondent Judge.
Judge. As a matter of policy,
policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity
capacity are not
subject to disciplinary action, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In
the instant case, the administrative complaint was obviously resorted to when complainant
failed to obtain the favorable action he wanted from the court. It must be stressed that the
filing of an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is
 

still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari,
unless issued or rendered with ill motive.
b)  However, the Court cannot gloss over the fact that respondent Judge was remiss in his duty
for his failure to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration with dispatch. Under the
Constitution, trial judges are given only ninety (90) days from the filing of the last pleading
 within which to resolve the matter at hand. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, likewise, enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay and dispose
of the court’s business promptly within the period prescribed by law. When respondent
 Judge
severaltook over were
motions the case,
filedthe
formotion for resolution.
its urgent reconsideration had already
Respondent Judgebeen long
acted on pending and
said motion
only after five (5) months from the time the case was assigned to him. Unfortunately,
respondent Judge’s explanation on this matter is wanting as he failed to file any comment on
the charges hurled against him.

 Adjudication:
 Judge Bayani Y. Ilano
Ilano is fined of P20
P20,, 000.00 charg
chargeable
eable to his retirement benefits.
benefits.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society/Legal Profession 

EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

 A.C. No. 5338, 580
580 SCRA 26 February
February 23, 2009
Per Curiam:

 This
 This is a peti
petitition
on fo
forr disb
disbar
arme
ment
nt..

Facts: Complainant, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, averred that: On October 13, 1998, she
borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc., through respondent, the amount ofP20, 000.00 payable in six months at
20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks. Respondent warned complainant that he would deposit Postal
Check No. 47253 filled up by him in the amount of P16, 000.00 because the amount remitted were not
enough to cover the penalties. 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 paying respondent the total sum of P35,
690.00.
Complainant further claimed that, later, respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in
blank, with the amount of P50,000.00 each which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00
cash that complainant
borrowed P100, 000.00received
from andonalso November 15, 1999.
claimed that Complainant
respondent victimizedinsisted
other however
employeesthat
of she never
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
 wh en he fi file
ledd a comp
compla lain
intt for
for viol
violat
atio
ionn ooff Batas Pambansa Blg . (B.P. Blg.) 22 against complainant, he was only
 vind
 vindic
icat
atin
ingg his
his righ
rights
ts as a ppri
riva
vate
te citi
citize
zen.
n. It wa
wass com
compl
plai
aina
nant
nt who
who del
delib
iber
erat
atel
elyy dec
decei
eive
vedd him
him by not
not hhon
onor
orin
ingg
her commitment to their November 15, 1999 transaction involving P100, 000.00 and covered by two checks
 whic
 wh ich
h bo boun
uncecedd fo
forr the
the rereas
ason
on “acc
“accouountnt cl
clos
osed ”. The IBP imposed indefinite suspension upon the
ed”.
respondent after an investigation.

Issue:
 
a)   Wh
b)  Whet
ethe
herr or not
not the resp
respon
the pena
pe onde
ltyydent
nalt ofntinde
inbe disb
dinite
defi sbar
finitearre
red
su d even
susp ev
spenen
ensi if is
sion
on th
ther
ereerrec
co
corr isect.
no
t. at
atto
torn
rney
ey-c
-clilien
entt re
rela
latition
onsh
ship
ip..

Ruling:
a)   Th
 Thee Sup
Supre
reme
me Cour
Courtt ru
rule
ledd tha
thatt the
the ffac
actt that
that ther
theree is no at
atto
torn
rney
ey-c
-clilien
entt re
rela
latition
onsh
ship
ip in th
this is ca
case
se an
andd the
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.
b)  Th
 Thee Cour
Courtt ag
agre
rees
es wit
withh the
the find
findin
inggs of the IBP
IBP,, bubutt fi
find
ndss th
that
at disba
disbarmrmen entt an
andd not
not just just indef
indefin
inititee
suspension is in order. The Supreme Court held that 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, morality, honesty
[26]
and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the bar. bar.  They
 They mus mustt cond
conduc uctt them
themseselvlveses
 with
 wi th grea
greatt prop
propri
riet
ety,
y, and
and thei
theirr beha
behavivior
or must
must be beyo
beyondnd rerepr
proa
oach
ch ananywywhe
here
re anandd at all
all titime
mes.s.
 

 
 Adjudication:
 Atty
 Atty.. Vic
Victo
torr V.
V. D
Dec
ecie
iemb
mbre
re is foun
foundd gu
guililty
ty of gross
ross an
andd vio
viola
latition
on of Cano
Canonn 11,, R
Rul
ulee 1.0
1.011 an
andd Can
Canon
on 7,
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court/Client/Society

CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE RAMOS-

 VILLALON
 A.C. No. 7084, 580
580 SCRA 310, Fe February
bruary 27, 2009
2009
BRION, J ..::

 This is an administrative case filed by complainant Conrado G. Fernandez against Atty.

Maria Angelica P. De Ramos-Villalon.
Ramos- Villalon.
Facts:
It was discovered by Palacios that Fernandez had falsified a Deed of Donation that he
(Palacios) purportedly executed in Fernandez’ favor in order acquire the lot that Palacios inherited
the lot from his mother. Palacios then employed the services of respondent Atty. Villalon to file a
Complaint for the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Donation that became the basis for the
issuance of a title in Conrado G. Fernandez’ name.
Fernandez claimed that the transfer of title in his name was proper on account of an existing
Deed of Absolute Sale between him and
and Palacios. He also alleged that it was Palacios who ffalsified
alsified
a Deed of Donation by forging their signatures and having it notarized; Palacios did this in order to
cheat the
 would government
have paid hadbythepaying only thebeen
transaction donor’s tax, whichaswas
represented lowerHe
a sale. than the capital alleged
additionally gains taxthat
he
Palacios intended to falsify the Deed of Donation in order to have a ground for the annulment of
the new TCT issued in favor of Fernandez and, ultimately, to recover the property. He also filed a
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Villalon for violation of Rule 1.01, Rule 7.03, Rule
10.01, Rule 10.02, and Rule 10.03 of the
t he Canons of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Villalon
Villalon be disbarred for
for suppression of
of evidence.

Ruling:

grounds TheforSupreme CourtAheld
disbarment. that as
lawyer, theancharges
officeragainst
of the the respondent
court, do to
has a duty notbeconstitute
truthful sufficient
in all his
dealings. However, this duty does not require that the lawyer advance matters of defense on behalf
of his or her client’s opponent. A lawyer is his or her client’s advocate; while duty -bound
-bound to utter
no falsehood, an ad vocate is not obliged to build the case for his or her client’s opponent. The
respondent’s former client, Palacios, approached her to file a complaint for the  annulment of the
Deed of Donation. This was the cause of action chosen by her client. Assuming arguendo that the
respondent knew of the presence of the Deed of Absolute Sale, its existence, is, indeed, a matter of
defense for Fernandez. The respondent cannot be faulted for choosing not to pursue the
nullification of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The respondent alleged that her former client, Palacios,
informed her that the Deed of Absolute Sale was void for lack of consideration. Furthermore,
unlike the Deed of Donation, the Deed of Absolute Sale was not registered in the Registry of
Deeds and was not the basis for the transfer of title of Palacios’ property to Fernandez . Under the
circumstances, it was not unreasonable for a lawyer to conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly,
 

that the Deed of Absolute Sale was immaterial in achieving the ultimate goal  –   the recovery of
Palacios’ property. 

 Adjudication:
 The complaint for Disbarment
Disbarment is dismissed.
dismissed.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court

CHRISTOPHER D. MANAOG vs. ARNEL JOSE A. RUBIO

 A.M. No. P-08-2521,
P-08-2521, 579 SCRA 10, February
February 13, 200
20099
NACHURA, J ..::

 This is a complaint for misconduct, unethical behavior, verbal abuse, manhandling, grave
threat, grave/serious oral defamation, harassment, abuse and usurpation of judicial power.

Facts:
On October 21, 2005, Christopher D. Manaoag went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to
secure information on ownership of certain parcels of land, which had been transferred to others
allegedly through fraud. He was inquiring at the information counter in the lobby of the Hall of
 Justice, when respondent Rubio approached him and said, "Digdi" (It’s here) after the former saw
the documents he had brought with him. The complainant claims the respondent told him that the
person whose signature appeared on the said documents was already dead, and whatever records
the complainant was looking for were already gone. A discussion followed, culminating in a verbal
tussle between them. On October 26, 2005, he returned to the Hall of Justice with his brother to
 verify the identity of the other employee (respondent Surtida) who had joined respondent Rubio in
 verbally abusing him. The respondents called them “Beasts” and “Nutcase”. 
Issue:
 Whether or not respondents are liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.

Ruling:
 Yes. Time and again, the Court has emphasized the heavy burden of responsibility which
court officials and employees are mandated to perform. They are constantly reminded that any
impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be
avoided. This is so because the image of the court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct,

official
requestedor to
otherwise, of the
adhere to the exacting
men andstandards
women who work there.
of morality and Thus, court
decency employees
in order have been
to preserve the
judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
Respondents Rubio and Surtida should be held liable for conduct unbecoming court
employees. Their acts of provoking the complainant constitute behavior wholly unexpected from
those in the judicial service. They should be reminded that government service is people-oriented.
Patience is an essential part
pa rt of dispensing justice, civility is never a sign of weakness, and courtesy is
a mark of culture and good breeding. Impatience and rudeness have no place in government
service in which personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times.

 Adjudication:
Sheriff Jose Arnel Rubio is guilty of simple misconduct for which he is suspended from the
service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. He is also guilty of conduct unbecoming a
court employee for which he is reprimanded.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society/Court/Client

 Arellano University, Inc. v. Atty. Leovigildo H.

H. Mijares III
 A.C. No. 8380, 605 SCRA 93, Novem
November
ber 20, 2009

 This disbarment case is about the need for

for a lawyer to account for funds entrusted to hi
him
m by
his client.

Facts:Sometime in January 2004, complainant Arellano University, Inc. (the University) engaged
the services of respondent Leovigildo H. Mijares III, a member of the Bar, for securing a certificate
of title covering a dried up portion of the Estero de San Miguel that the University had been
occupying. The property was the subject of a Deed of Exchange dated October 1, 1958 between
the City of Manila and the University.
 The University requested Mijares for copies of the MMDA approval but he unjustifiably
failed to comply despite his client’s repeated demands. Then he made himself scarce, prompting the
University to withdraw all the cases it had entrusted to him and demand the return of the P500,
000.00 it gave him. On November 23, 2005 the University wrote Mijares by registered letter,
formally terminating his services in the titling matter and demanding the return of the P500,000.00.
P500,000.00.
 The IBP designated Atty. Dennis B. Funa as Commissioner to conduct a formal investigation of
the complaint.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent
respondent Mijares violated
violated the Code of Professional
Professional Responsibility.
Responsibility.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Court found Atty. Mijares guilty of violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15,
Rule 15.05, Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Responsibility. Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance the interests
of his client such that he must promptly account for whatever money or property his client may

have
from entrusted
that of histoown
him.and
Asmake
a mere trustee
sure of said
that they are money
used forortheir
property, he must
intended holdIfthem
purpose. separate
not used, he
must return the money or property immediately to his client upon demand, otherwise the lawyer
shall be presumed to have misappropriated the same in violation of the trust reposed on him. A
lawyer’s conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional ethics.
Even more unfortunate for Mijares, he admitted under oath having bribed a government
official to act favorably on his client’s application to acquire title to a dried-up creek. That is quite
dishonest. The Court is not, therefore, inclined to let him off with the penalty of indefinite
suspension which is another way of saying he can resume his practice after a time if he returns the
money and makes a promise to shape up.

 Adjudication:
Respondent Leovigildo H. Mijares III is imposed the penalty of disbarment. He is, in
addition, directed to return to complainant Arellano University, Inc. all the documents in his
possession covering the titling matter that it referred to him.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

FRANCISCO A. LABAO vs. LOLITA N. FLORES et al.,

G.R. No. 187894. November 15, 2010
BRION, J.:

 This is a petition for

for review on certiorari.

Facts:Petitioner is the proprietor and general manager of a licensed security-service

contractor. Respondents were security
security guards assigned to the
the National Power Corporation
Corporation (NPC-
Mindanao). Petitioner issued a memorandum requiring all security guards to submit their updated
personal data files, security guard professional license, and other pertinent documents. When
respondents failed to comply with the petitioner’s directive, despite several notices to do so, the
petitioner relieved them. Respondents filed individual complaints with Labor Arbiter (LA) for
illegal dismissal and money claims, claiming they were constructively dismissed when they were not
given new assignments for a period of over 6 months, despite their repeated requests. Petitioner
countered that the respondents’ relief from duty was a valid exercise of its management
prerogative. Furthermore, petitioner issued a notice directing the respondents to report to
SMPSA’s
 valid mainThe
reasons. office
LAfor newinassignments,
ruled favor of thebutpetitioner.
the latter On
failed or refused
appeal, to comply
the NLRC ut any
withothe
affirmed LA
decision. Counsel for the respondents appealed with the Court of Appeals (CA) outside the
reglementary period, yet the ruling was in favor of respondents. The petitioner and SMPSA moved
for reconsideration, arguing that the CA should have dismissed the petition outright for late filing,
and that there was no compelling reason for the reversal of the LA and the NLRC’s factual
findings. CA considered the respondents’ petition as timely filed and also opined that disregarding
any procedural lapses best served substantial justice.

Issue:
 Whether or not the negiligence
negiligence of counsel binds
binds the respondents.

Ruling:
 Yes. The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his
his counsel in the
realm of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so
gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.The failure of a
party ’s
’s counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment, to enable him to appeal therefrom,
is negligence that is not excusable. The Court have repeatedly held that noticenotice sent to counsel of
record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment
 valid and regular
regular on its face.
 The Court cannot sustain the respondents’ argument that they cannot be bound b y Atty.
Plando’s negligence since this would set a dangerous precedent. It would enable every party -litigant
-litigant
to render inoperative any adverse order or decision of the courts or tribunals, through the simple
expedient of alleging his/her counsel’s gross ne gligence.
 

 Adjudication:
 The present petition is granted.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

 ATTY. LEONOR M. ALCANTARA

ALCANTARA et.al. v ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VE
VERA
RA
 A.C. No. 5859, 634
634 S 674, November
November 23, 2010
2010 
EN BANC, PER CURIAM

 This is a petition for review of the Resolution of the Board of Governors of the IBP finding
the respondent liable for professional malpractice and gross misconduct.

Facts:
 A writ of execution pending appeal
appeal was issued in favo
favorr of Rosario Mercado in relation
relation to her
civil case handled by respondent. Respondent garnished the bank deposits of Mercado but did not
give him his share as part of the proceeds were already used to pay the judge and what was left
constituted his attorney’s fees. An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Mercado
and the IBP Board of Governors found him guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of the
clients funds and recommended a one-year suspension. Following this resolution, a series of
lawsuits were filed by respondent against the Mercados and all those responsible for his suspension
including members of the judiciary. His disbarment is also sought for because of barratry, forum
shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate language.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent
respondent is guilty as charged.
charged.

Ruling:
 Yes. It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege and is vested
only to those who act in good behavior. In the present case, the respondent committed
professional malpractice and gross misconduct particularly in his acts against his former clients and
 virtually all those connected to his suspension. The barrage of cases filed by respondent appears to
be an act of revenge and hate driven by frustration and anger. The respondent not only filed
frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that violated his duties as an officer of the court in the proper
administration
 This is in clearofviolation
justice but he did so
of Canon 21against a former
and Rule 21.02 client
of thetoCode
whomof he owes loyaltyResponsibility
Professional and fidelity.
 which states that a lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even if their
attorney-client relationship is terminated.

 Adjudication:
Respondent is disbarred.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. De Guzman Duty to Society

MANUEL YUHICO v ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

 A.C. No. 8391, 635 S 684, Nove
November
mber 23, 2010
EN BANC, PER CURIAM

 This is an administrative
administrative complaint for dis
disbarment.
barment.

Facts:Petitioner and respondent became good friends. Later on, respondents asked financial
assistance from Yuhico for the hospitalization of his mother in the amount of P30, 000.00. He
promised to pay it as soon as possible but again after several months, respondent borrowed from
petitioner an amount of P60,000.00 now for the hospitalization of his sick wife. Respondent
assured that he will pay it shortly because he was expecting an amount of four million pesos from a
 Japanese client as attorney’s fees. After demand, Yuhico was not paid which prompted him to file
the complaint against respondent before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline. It would appear
however that the respondent had been earlier disbarred for gross misconduct in view of his failure
to pay his debts and issuance of worthless checks. The IBP-CBD found the respondent guilty of
misconduct and ordered him to return the amount due him to the complainant. It also
recommended that the respondent be disbarred again even if he was actually already
alread y disbarred.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:
 Yes. Failure to
t o pay debt constitutes gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned
 with suspension from the practice of law. 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

Court also cannot overlooksystem is ensured.
the fact In the case, respondent’s
of his employment of deceit andguilt is in no question.
misrepresentation forThe
the
purpose of obtaining debts without the intention of paying them.

 Adjudication:
Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and he is ordered to pay the amount of P90,000.00
to the complainant with interest.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society

LORNA M. VILLAUEVA v JUDGE APOLIARIO M. BUAYA

 A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131,
RTJ-08-2131, 635 S 472 (2010)
THIRD DIVISION, BRION,J.

 This is an administrative complaint filed against respondent for gross ignorance of the law
and abuse of authority.

Facts:
Respondent was designated Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 17 of Palompon,
Leyte which was hearing the qualified seduction case against Vice-Mayor Constantino S. Tupa.
 Tupa went into hiding but later surrendered to the authorities. Respondent granted his ex-parte
motion to grant bail without notice and hearing. The complainant in the case against Tupa,
 Villanueva, asked for the reconsideration
reconsideration of the grant of the ex-parte motion as there was no notice
and hearing which was required in all motion to grant bail. In his defense, respondent said that
 Tupa’s offense was bailable and he has the right to bail. The Court Administrator found the act of
respondent to be unjust as even if the offense was bailable, basic considerations of fair play should
have compelled respondent at the minimum, to consult with the prosecution. The OCA
recommended
reprimanded. that respondent be filed with an administrative case for lack of prudence and be

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent
respondent is guilty of gross
gross ignorance of
of the law.

Ruling:
 Yes. In the case of Basco v Rapatalo, the Court laid down the rules outlining the duties of a
judge in case an application for bail is filed which includes notification of the prosecution of the
hearing and conduct of the hearing. Judges owe it to the public and the legal profession to know
the very law they are supposed to apply in a given controversy. One who accepts the exalted
position
all times.of a judge
When owesdisplays
a judge the public
utterand theofcourt
lack the duty
familiarity withtothe
maintain professional
rules, he erodes thecompetence at
confidence of
the public and the courts. A judge owes the public and the Court the duty to be proficient in the
law and is expected keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence.
jurisprudence.

 Adjudication:
Respondent is fined of P20,000.00 with a warning that repetition of the same similar acts in
the future shall merit a more serious penalty.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

SPOUSES VIRGIOLIO AND ANGELINA ARANDA v ATTY. EMMANUEL F.

ELAYDA
 A.C. No. 7907, 638
638 S 336, December
December 15, 2010
FIRST DIVISION, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.

 This is an administrative case filed against respondent for gross negligence or gross
misconduct.
Facts:
Spouses Aranda filed the complaint for the “sorely inadequate” manner of respondent’s
handling of their case. Atty. Elayda did not act upon the order submitting the spouses’ case for
decision. Thus, a judgment was rendered against them. A notice of said judgment was received by
respondent who did not file any notice of appeal or motion for reconsideration, thus, the judgment
became final and executory. He did not also inform the respondents of the outcome of the case.
 They only knew of the judgment when a writ of execution was issued and subsequently
implemented by the sheriff. In his defense, respondent said that he was not at fault as the spouses
cannot be reached and they did not exert effort to inquire into the status of the case. The
investigating commissioner
suspension from found
the practice respondent
of law guilty ofwhich
for six months grosswas
negligence
adopted and recommended
by the IBP Board his
of
Governors.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent was at fault in his failure to communicate with his clients
amounting to gross negligence

Ruling:
 Yes. Atty. Elayda is duty bound to uphold and safeguard the interests of his clients. He
should give adequate attention, care and time to all cases he is handling. He is expected to monitor
the progressbyoflaw
authorized thetocase and the
protect is obligated to exert
cause of his client.allAtty.
efforts to present
Elayda failed inevery
all ofremedy or defense
these and to pass
the blame to his clients for their apparent lack of effort to communicate with him is untenable. It is
elementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients to exchange contact details at the initial stages in
order to have constant communication with each other. His conduct showed that he not only on ly failed
to exercise due diligence in handling his clients’ cause but in fact abandoned his clients’ cause.

 Adjudication:
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six months.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to the Legal Profession

 ATTY. JONNA M. ESCABARTE v MS. LOIDA J. GERNABE

 A.M. No. p-09-2602,
p-09-2602, 636 S 28
2877 (2010)
THIRD DIVISION, BRION,J.

 These are consolidated administrative complaints involving the presiding judge and staff of
RTC Branch 275 of Las Pinas City.

Facts: 
Respondent was suspended for thirty days as a result of a complaint filed by complainants.
She allegedly worked despite her suspension. The suspension was ordered because of Gernabe’s
failure to finish her task before going to Baguio City to attend a legal researcher’s convention. She
allegedly caused the disruption of one of the meetings of the staff after she was reprimanded by the
judge. As a counterclaim, Gernabe alleged that there were several irregularities in court like the
bundy cards of several employees being punched in and out by one person only. She also alleged
that Judge Maceda was treating her abusively as to compel her to resign from the Court.

Issue:
 What are the respective sanctions
sanctions for the parties?
parties?
Ruling:
Genabe ought to be disciplined as several employees of the Court will prove her being short-
tempered, hurling invectives to her superior and co-employees. Every official and employee of an
agency involved in the administration of justice from the Presiding Justice to the most junior clerk
are circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility of observing propriety and decorum. The
allegations against complainants in relation to falsification and dishonesty are dismissed for being
bare and unsubstantiated allegations. 

 Adjudication:

amountGenabe is found
equivalent to herguilty of conduct
one month salary.prejudicial to the best interest of service and fined an
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society

 JOVITO S. OLAZO v DANTE

DANTE O. TINGA
 A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC,
10-5-7-SC, 637 S 1, December
December 7, 2010
EN BANC, BRION,J.

 This is a disbarment case against respondent charged of violation of various rules of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Facts:
 The first charge against respondent is violation of Rule 6.02 whereby the respondent, in his
capacity as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards formed for the
implementation of Proclamation No. 172, unduly interfered with the complainant’ s sales
application covering a parcel of land because of his personal interest over the subject land. The
second charge is violation of Rule 6.03 when respondent manipulated the Olazo brothers in the
transfer of rights of a parcel of land to one Rolando Olazo, a barangay captain in Taguig. The third
charge was a violation of Rule 1.01 whereby he engaged in unlawful conduct when he chose a
certain Joseph Rodriguez knowing fully well that he was not a qualified beneficiary of
memorandum No. No. 119. A violation of Section 7(b)(2) ooff RA 67 6713
13 was also
also raised when he
allegedly appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on
 Awards.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent’s actions constituted a breach of the standard ethical conduct
 while he was a public official and when hhee was a private lawyer

Ruling:
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the continuing standard of
ethical conduct to be observed by government lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. A
government lawyer is also obliged to observe the standard of conduct under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
promote or advance A lawyer
his private in the
interfere norgovernment service
allow the latter shall not with
to interfere use his
hispublic
publicposition to
duties. In
the case at bar, there is absence of concrete proof that the respondent abused his position.
 As to the allegation of practice of law with the prohibited period, the available pieces of
evidence are insufficient to show that the legal representation was made before the Committee on
 Awards, or that the Assurance
Assurance was intended to present before it.

 Adjudication:
 The case is dismissed
dismissed for lack of mer
merit.
it.
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Code of Judicial Ethics

CARMEN EDAÑO vs. Judge FATIMA G. ASDALA

 A.M. No. RTJ-06-2007,
RTJ-06-2007, 636 SCRA 466,
466, December 6, 2010
BRION, J.:

 This is an administrative complaint for violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics, misconduct,
rendering an erroneous decision, and rendering a decision beyond the 90-day reglementary period.

Facts:
 The complainant alleged that she was the plaintiff in a civil case for Support with prayer for
Support Pendente Lite entitled "Carlo Edaño and Jay-ar Edaño, represented by Carmen Edano v.
George F. Butler," pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City, presided over
by the respondent judge. The complainant claimed that the respondent judge made it appear that
Civil Case No. Q-97-30576 was decided on March 22, 2005, although the records show that she
(respondent judge) still ruled on several motions relating to this case even after that date. The
complainant further alleged that the respondent judge erred in denying her notice of appeal.The
respondent judge maintained that she had rendered the decision on March 22, 2005, although it
 was mailed on a later date. Respondent aalso
lso claimed that the delay was not deliberate. She added
that the complainant
pendente lite from thewas not prejudiced
defendant. by the delay
The respondent judge as she continuously
likewise explained thatreceived support
the orders she
issued after March 22, 2005 did not touch on the merits of the case; they were orders directing the
release of money deposited by the defendant as support pendente lite. According to her, she denied
the complainant’s notice of appeal beca use Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action
act ion without prejudice. Finally,
she explained that her dismissal of the subject civil case and the denial of the notice of appeal are
not the proper subjects of an administrative case as they are acts pertaining to her judicial
functions. In her reply, complainant maintained that the respondent judge violated the 90-day
reglementary period for rendering decisions. She also revealed that the respondent judge made her
sign a complaint against a Public Attorneys Office lawyer, to force the said lawyer to stay in her
(respondent judge’s)
 The OCA, in sala.  
its Report dated April 18, 2006, recommended that the respondent judge be
fined in the amount ofP10, 000.00 for undue delay in rendering a decision, with a stern warning
that a commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Issue:
 Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision.

Ruling:
 Yes. Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution requires judges to decide all cases within
three (3) months from the date of submission. This Constitutional policy is reiterated in Rule 1.02,
Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states that a judge should administer justice
impartially and without delay; and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the same Code provides that a judge shall
 promptly  and
 and decide cases within the required periods. In the present case,
dispose of the court’s business promptly 
 

Civil Case No. Q-97-30576 had been submitted for decision on December 9, 2004; the decision
 was, therefore, due on March 9, 2005. The records do not show that the respondent judge asked
for an extension to decide this case. Thus, when she decided the case on March 22, 2005, the 90-
day reglementary period had already lapsed. The respondent judge’s explanation that the
complainant was not prejudiced by the delay is immaterial, as it is her constitutional duty to decide
the case within three months from the date
d ate of submission.

 Adjudication:
 Judge Fatima
 Ten ThousandFaPesos
tima G. Asdala is found
(P10,000.00).
(P10,000.00).  guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision. She is fined
 

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Code of Judicial Conduct

 ATTY. NORLINDA R. AMANTE-DESCALLA

AMANTE-DESCALLAR R vs.HON. REINERIO
REINERIO (ABRAHAM) B.
RAMAS
 A.M. No. RTJ-06-2015,
RTJ-06-2015, 638 SCRA 358, December 15, 2010
2010
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

 This is an administrative
administrative complaint again
against
st Judge Reinerio Ramas.
Ramas.

Facts:
 Atty. Cerilles claimed to know Judge Ramas very well since the latter is his godfather and
 wedding sponsor. Atty.
Atty. Cerilles admitted that he had many pending cases before Judge
Judge Ramas’ sala,
including Criminal Case No. 04-7003, entitled People v. Dizon, for Slight Illegal Detention, which
involved his grandnephews. On May 12, 2005, Atty. Cerilles went to the RTC-Branch 18 to find
out if his grandnephews’ Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation could be heard. However, upon
inquiry, he was told that Judge Ramas was not around because his estranged wife arrived. When
 Atty. Cerilles returned to the RTC-Branch 18 the following day, May 13, 2005, he was informed
that Judge Ramas was still absent. Atty. Descallar testified that Judge Ramas failed to indicate his
absences on May 12, 13, 24, and 27 to 30, 2005, and June 1 to 21, 2005 in his Certificates of Service
for the months
calendar of May
of hearings andand
hisJune 2005.
failure The absence
to attend of Judge
the raffle Ramas
of cases donecan be gleaned
every from
Thursday the week.
of the court
 Also, the Omnibus Order dated May 23, 2005 issued by Judge Ramas manifested his momentary
desistance from performing judicial functions from May 24, 2005 onwards.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent
respondent judge is guilty of
of making untruth
untruthful
ful statements.

Ruling:
 Yes. Judge Ramas is presumed to be aware of his duties and responsibilities under the Code
of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3 generally mandates that a judge should perform official duties
honestly, and with
and maintain impartiality
professional and diligence.
competence, whileRule 3.013.09
Rule requires that a judge
commands be faithful
a judge to thehigh
to observe law
standards of public service and fidelity at all times. Judge Ramas irrefragably failed to observe these
standards by making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service to cover up his absences.
 The Court has previously held that a judge’s submission of false certificates of service
seriously undermines and reflects on the honesty and integrity expected of an officer of the court.
 This is so because a certificate of service is not merely a means to one's paycheck but is an
instrument by which the Court can fulfill the constitutional mandate of the people ' s right to a
speedy disposition of cases.Under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 on the Discipline of
 Justices and Judges, making
making untruthful statements
statements in the certificate of service
service is categorized as a less
serious offense and punishable by suspension without salary and other benefits for not less than
one month nor more than three months or a fine of more thanP10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00. Considering that this is Judge Ramas’ second offense in his almost 12 years
in the Judiciary, the Court adopts Justice Lopez’s recommendation of imposing on the erring  judge  judge
a fine in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).
( P15,000.00).
 

 
 Adjudication:
 Judge Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas is found GUILTY of making untruthful statements in
his Certificates of Service for the months of May and June 2005 and is hereby FINED in the
amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.