10 RECENT

PHILIPPINE
CASES

Jenefa Krysthel Joyce A. Franco

CASES:

BUENAVISTA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. DELORIA …………………………………...2

HARPER vs. IBAÑEZ……………………………………………………………..3

DE GUZMAN vs. DE QUIROZ…………………………………………………...4

DE LEON-DIAZ vs. CALAYAN………………………………………………………….5

JACOLBIA vs. PANGANIBAN………………………………………………………...6

LIM vs. MENDOZA………………………………………………………………..7

MACAPAGAL vs. YOUNG……………………………………………………….8

NAVA vs. ARTUZ………………………………………………………………….9

SIA SU vs. TALABOC……………………………………………………………10

VARGAS vs. ARCILLA, JR……………………………………………………...11

1
 BUENAVISTA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. DELORIA
A.C. No. 12160, August 14, 2018
Facts:
BPI entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with La Savoie Development
Corporation (LSDC), represented by Atty. Deloria, for the development of a parcel of
land into a mixed-use commercial and residential subdivision and for the sale of the
subdivided lots. BPI alleged that the plans, applications, and other documents of LSDC
were submitted to, processed, and evaluated by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) at the time when Atty. Deloria was one of its commissioners. LSDC
then sold the subdivided lots at very low prices. Further, LSDC misrepresented itself as
the owner of the lots, prompting BPI to demand that LSDC refrain from further selling
them. However, LSDC disregarded BPI’s demands; hence, the latter filed a complaint
against the former for termination of contract, recovery of property and damages, with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction (civil case) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
With Atty. Deloria as counsel, LSDC filed an answer with counterclaim and a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to direct BPI
to execute the deeds of absolute sale and release the corresponding titles to the lot
buyers, and thereafter, when the prayer for injunction was denied, filed a
complaint before the HLURB praying for the same reliefs.
Issue:
Whether or not grounds exist to hold Atty. Deloria administratively liable for any
violations of the CPR.
Ruling:
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or
in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through
means other than appeal or certiorari. There is forum shopping when the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another. Atty. Deloria violated Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for having filed two (2) cases involving the same parties, issues,
facts, and reliefs. Clearly, the elements of litis pendentia are present, considering: (a)
the identity of parties, i.e., BPI and LSDC; (b) identity of rights or causes of action, i.e.,
BPI and LSDC being parties to the JVA, from which sprang their respective rights and
obligations; and (c) identity of reliefs sought, i.e., to compel BPI to execute the deeds of
absolute sale and deliver the titles of the purchased lots. In fact, the HLURB in its
decision dismissed LSDC's complaint based on the same ground. For these reasons,
the court find respondent Atty. Amado B. Deloria guilty of violating Rule 12.02 of Canon
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended from the practice of

2
law for a period of two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

HARPER vs. IBAÑEZ

A.C. No. 10364, September 7, 2020
Facts:
Complainant James Harper (complainant) charges respondent Atty. Amado O.
Ibañez (respondent) with having committed perjury in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent obtained a loan from Francisco Munoz,
Consuelo Estrada, and Maria 1 Consuelo Munoz, secured by a real estate mortgage
over a property located in Manila and covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No.
202978. Respondent turned over the owner's duplicate copy of the property's title to
Francisco, the financier of the said loan.  Upon the demise of Francisco in 2004,
complainant was appointed as administrator of his estate. Respondent requested
complainant to submit to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) the
duplicate copy of the title upon payment of the loan. However, this request went
unheeded. Respondent executed an Affidavit of Loss stating that the owner's
duplicate title has been misplaced/lost due to Francisco's death. Complainant
opposed the petition for reconstitution and presented the said title before the trial court
to prove that it was in his possession as administrator of the estate of Francisco.
Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint for Perjury against respondent. Respondent
conceded that complainant informed him that the duplicate title of the mortgaged
property was in his possession. However, he did not believe him since he did not show
him the title.
Issue:
Whether respondent committed perjury in the execution of the Affidavit of Loss.
Ruling:
Respondent's claim that complainant did not show him the title does not suffice to
form a belief that the title was indeed missing. The letter respondent wrote to the
complainant dated April 5, 2006 is a clear indication that he knew that the duplicate title
is in the possession of complainant. Still, he executed the subject Affidavit of Loss on
May 8, 2006 claiming that the said title was missing, in support of his petition for
reconstitution that was filed on even date before the RTC. He strategically resorted to
the filing of the reconstitution petition in order to draw out the title from the complainant.
Respondent failed to remain faithful to his duty as a lawyer to do no falsehood .
Fabricating a statement in his affidavit that the duplicate title was missing and
offering it in support of his petition for reconstitution violated not only the
Lawyer's Oath but also the CPR.  He failed to live up to the moral standards expected

3
of him as a member of the legal profession. Based on these reasons, respondent Atty.
Amado O. Ibañez is found guilty of violating Canons 1 and 10, and Rules 1.01 and
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. He is
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a stern
warning that commission of the same or similar offense will result in the
imposition of a more severe penalty.

DE GUZMAN vs. DE QUIROZ

A.C. No. 10853, June 17, 2020
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent sometime in
2013 for the filing of a case for declaration of nullity of complainant's marriage.
According to complainant, respondent insisted that the case be filed in Manila despite
the fact that complainant's residence is in Las Piñas City. Eventually, the case was
dismissed by the RTC of Manila, Branch 4 for improper venue. Respondent then filed
the petition before the RTC of Las Piñas City. Unfortunately, the second case was also
dismissed by Branch 254 of said RTC for failure of respondent to file a pre-trial brief.
Respondent re-filed complainant's petition with the RTC of Las Piñas. Attached to the
petition was an "Ex Parte Motion to Inhibit (For Purposes of Raffle)," seeking to exclude
RTC-Branch 254 from the "re-raffle" of the case. The dismissal was grounded on
respondent's alleged willful and deliberate forum shopping on account of his failure to
disclose the two previously dismissed cases. It is complainant's stance that respondent
was negligent as a lawyer and such negligence greatly prejudiced complainant's case
for nullity of marriage. Hence, this disbarment case. Respondent alleged that it was
complainant who misrepresented his place of residence he also alleged that he had with
him complainant's pre-trial brief on the date of the scheduled pre-trial. However, he
arrived late in court due to unusually heavy traffic. Asserting that he did not commit
forum shopping, respondent highlighted the fact that the third petition was
accompanied by a motion to inhibit RTC-Branch 254, which only shows that he
had no ill motive to conceal the previous filing of the petition.
Issue:
Whether respondent can be held liable for violating Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and
12.04, Canon 17, and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Respondent had been remiss in the performance of his duty as complainant's
counsel. While respondent's tardiness may be excused on grounds of liberality and
substantial justice, nonetheless, his unjustified failure to file complainant's pre-trial brief
was clear negligence on respondent's part. The failure to submit the brief within the

4
reglementary period which should be done three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial
is an offense that entails disciplinary action. Respondent admitted having failed to
submit complainant's pre-trial brief due to "mere oversight caused by heavy pressure of
work." Pressure and large volume of legal work do not excuse a counsel for filing a
pleading out of time. It is the counsel's duty to devote his/her full attention, diligence,
skills, and competence to every case that he/she accepts. Failure to file a pre-trial brief
has the same effect as failure to appear at pre-trial, which, in this case, is the dismissal
of the case with prejudice inasmuch as the non-filing and non-appearance had been on
the part of the plaintiff. A dismissal with prejudice is already deemed an adjudication of
the case on the merits, and it disallows and bars the refiling of the complaint. It is a final
judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have
been brought in it. Respondent’s act of re-filing the prejudicially dismissed second
petition was an act of forum shopping. Based on these reasons, respondent Atty.
Napoleon C. De Quiroz is found of violating Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 12.04,
Canon 17, and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Respondent is
further warned that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

DE LEON-DIAZ vs. CALAYAN

A.C. No. 9252, November 28, 2019
Facts:
Executive Judge Eloida R. De Leon-Diaz filed a formal complaint against
respondent Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan relative to his alleged misconduct in the
handling of his cases before the different branches of the Lucena City trial courts. Judge
Diaz informed the Court of the agreement arrived at by all incumbent judges at the raffle
of cases, requesting that all cases involving respondent Atty. Calayan and his family,
whether newly-filed or not, and which at that time already totaled fifteen (15), be
transferred to another venue to maintain the dignity and respectability of the court due
to Atty. Calayan's persistent demands for them to inhibit either by motion or by
filing administrative cases against them. Judges have been harassed by Atty.
Calayan one way or another through the relentless filing of unnecessary
pleadings “almost every day.” Atty. Calayan explained his was an extraordinary
predicament for CEFI was the only legacy left of his family. But he asserts that these
pleadings were far from being violative of any rule nor were they prohibited. As such,
Atty. Calayan sought the indulgence of the Court, claiming that he never intended on
harassing any judge or party-litigant with his actions.
Issue:

5
 Whether respondent engaged in an indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions,
and civil, criminal and even administrative cases against several trial court judges,
lawyers, and members of his family.

Ruling:
Atty. Calayan must be held administratively liable for his infractions, in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath,
specifically, Canon 8; Rule 10.03, Canon 10; and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR.
The court agree that there was indeed a demonstration of a rebellious, disruptive, and
boisterous attitude from Atty. Calayan. Contrary to his claims, his rampant filing of
pleading after pleading, most of which were eventually dismissed or rejected for being
unsubstantiated by any convincing proof, can hardly support his claims of good faith. It
is well to remember that justice is what the facts and the law dictate, and not that which
a lawyer wants it to be. As such, he does not possess the right to attack the judgment of
a court merely for being adverse to his position. To the Court, Atty. Calayan grossly
abused his right to recourse to the courts when he filed series of actions essentially
involving the same subject matter or substantially an identical relief. As duly observed
by Judge Diaz, it is rather inconsistent for a lawyer to file endless complaints
against the judges handling his case and, at the same time, claim that he is
seeking a speedy disposition thereof. Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan is sternly
warned that a similar misconduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

JACOLBIA vs. PANGANIBAN

A.C. No. 12627, February 18, 2020
Facts:
Complainant, Leilani Jacolbia engaged the services of respondent, Jimmy
Panganiban for the processing of the transfer and registration of a land title, and in
connection, paid the latter the amount of P244,865.00. However, twelve (12) years had
passed until the filing of the administrative complaint without respondent having
rendered the services he had assumed. Respondent refused to return the amount
he received as legal fees as well as all pertinent documents entrusted to him by
complainant, including the original copy of OCT No. M-3772. The IBP-CBD issued an
Order requiring respondent to submit his answer to the complaint and furnish
complainant with a copy within fifteen (15) days from receipt . The IBP-CBD issued a
Notice of Mandatory Conference notifying the parties to appear for mandatory
conference, with a warning that non-appearance by the parties shall be deemed a
waiver of their right to participate in further proceedings. However, despite due notice,
respondent failed to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference and file his
answer to the complaint. Thus, the mandatory conference was terminated and the
6
parties were required to file their respective position papers within ten (10) days from
receipt of the Order. Respondent filed a motion to reset the mandatory conference and
to hold in abeyance the filing of his position paper, which was denied. Subsequently,
respondent failed to file his position paper.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts
complained of.
Ruling:
It is settled that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound
to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence,
care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.
Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client
constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively
liable. A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same
for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. The Court notes
respondent's repeated disregard of the IBP-CBD's orders and proceedings. Records
show that despite being required to do so, respondent failed to file his answer,
mandatory conference brief, and position paper. He also failed to appear at the
schedule mandatory conference despite due notice. Instead, respondent merely filed a
motion to reset the mandatory conference and to hold in abeyance the filing of his
position paper, which caused undue delay in the resolution of the instant administrative
case. Respondent is duty-bound to comply with all the IBP's lawful directives in
deference to its authority over him. Verily, his failure to comply with the orders of the
IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities, for which
he must be disciplined accordingly. The court find Atty. Jimmy R. Panganiban
administratively liable for violating Canons 2 and 11, Rule 12.04 of Canon 12,
Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three (3) years with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely. He is likewise ordered to pay a fine in
the amount of P15,000.00 for failure to comply with the directives of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. Further,
respondent is ordered to return to complainant the amount of P244,865.00, which
shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from his receipt
of this decision until full payment.

LIM vs. MENDOZA

7
 A.C. No. 10261, July 16, 2019
Facts:
Rufina Luy Lim, the widow of Pastor, alleged in her complaint that Mendoza in
1995 notarized the petition for intervention filed by Pastor’s brother Miguel Lim, who
stated under oath that Skyline International, Inc., Nell Mart, Inc., and other companies
were dummy corporations. He also notarized the affidavits of Teresa Lim, Lani
Wenceslao and Susan Sabado stating in essence that they were dummies in the
corporations of Pastor. As counsel of Skyline, however, Mendoza asserted its
ownership of several real properties against Rufina’s claims to Pastor’s estate.
Mendoza also acted as vice-president of Nell Mary and demanded that its tenants
vacate the property registered under its name. He now claimed that the statements in
the Petition were mere hearsay and that the shares of stocks he now owns in the
corporations were actually payments to him for his services and advances.
Issue:
Whether the respondent should be disbarred for flip-flopping on the issue of
dummy corporations of Pastor Lim, representing both sides of the issue.
Ruling:
Assuming that respondent drafted the Petition for Intervention, since he signed
the same, the presumption is that the contents are true and correct, as in fact, his client
attested to the truthfulness of the contents. To later assail the truthfulness of the Petition
for Intervention, alleging that it was a pre-arranged agreement between his client and
the complainant, shows that respondent lied to the courts. Respondent also cannot
feign ignorance as to the veracity of the statements in the petition because he signed
the same. It is a solemn component of legal practice that through a counsel's signature,
a positive declaration is made. With the incompatibility of the two positions, it is
clear that respondent has been less than truthful in at least one occasion . Despite
his knowledge about the irregularity in the issuance of shares in Nell Mart, he still
acquired shares of stocks and even claimed to be a buyer in good faith. As officers of
the court, lawyers are expected to act with complete candor. They may not resort to the
use of deception, not just in some, but in all their dealings. Complete and absolute
honesty is expected of lawyers when they appear and plead before the courts.
Any act that obstructs or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct
which merits disciplinary action on lawyers. The Supreme Court disbarred Mendoza
from the practice of law for violations of Canons 1, 5 and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and ordered his name stricken off the
Rolls of Attorneys.

MACAPAGAL vs. YOUNG

8
 A.C. No. 9298, July 29, 2019
Facts:
Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal alleged that she received a letter from
respondent Atty. Walter T. Young threatening her that an administrative and a
criminal complaint for "knowingly rendering an unjust judgment" would be filed
against her if the writ of possession/writ of demolition would be implemented
against the respondent’s informal settler clients. Judge Macapagal alleged that Atty.
Young committed an act unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) in sending the subject threatening letter. The respondent alleged
that he was courteous in the subject letter. He honestly believed that his letter was just a
cautionary notice which is not unlawful, not illegal, not offensive and not menacing. He
also stated in his Comment that he sent the subject letter in order to "courteously warn"
and prevent Judge Macapagal from "committing a judicial act which would be a
transgression" of his clients' right to due process, and which would make her "truly
vulnerable to criminal as well as administrative" complaints.
Issue:
Whether the respondent did threaten to file administrative and criminal
complaints in his letter addressed to Judge Macapagal.
Ruling:
The court said that the respondent’s statements demonstrate how he had failed
to observe the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers. The court finds Atty.
Young's act of sending the subject letter to Judge Macapagal highly improper. Atty.
Young committed a disrespectful and uncalled for act against the judiciary. The
Court held the lawyer in contempt for sending a telegram to a judge, requesting him to
set aside his orders, otherwise criminal, civil and administrative charges will be filed
against him. The Court reiterated that while lawyers have the right, both as officers of
the court and as citizens, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges, such criticisms, no matter how truthful, shall not
spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Supreme Court did not impose a harsher
penalty because this was Young’s first offense and because of his advanced age,
feelings of remorse and family circumstances. Supreme Court found Young guilty of
violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He is
reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the offense would be dealt
with more severely.

NAVA vs. ARTUZ

A.C. No. 7253, February 18, 2020

9
Facts:
During the pendency of the case for disbarment of Artuz filed by Nava, the
respondent was appointed and subsequently took her Oath of Office as Presiding Judge
of the MTCC Branch 5 but the complainant sought to nullify the nomination and
appointment of Artuz for being patently illegal, improper and irregular. Nava alleged that
Artuz was unfit and incompetent to be appointed as trial judge as she faced “several
criminal administrative cases, the nature of which involved her character, competence,
probity, integrity and independence which should not have been disregarded in her
application to the judiciary.” Upon verifying that there are indeed pending cases
against respondent which she failed to disclose in her Personal Data Sheets
(PDS), the Supreme Court decision stated that Artuz’s dismissal from service was
“effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave
credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without prejudice
to her criminal liabilities.” The Court directed her to show cause why no disciplinary
action should be taken against her. In her defense, Artuz alleged that the nullification
case was a desperate retaliatory move by Nava because of the disbarment case she
filed against him and for which he was found guilty of gross misconduct and suspended
from the practice of law for two months. He also claimed that the charges filed against
her were already dismissed or outrightly not given due course. She then prayed that the
nullification case be dismissed, since she met all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications for a judicial position. He further explained that while she was aware
that there were complaints lodged against her, the clearance from the DOJ led her to
honestly believe that the same have not ripened into formal charges to be disclosed in
her PDS.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.
Ruling:
The court said that instead of showing cause and proving why she should not be
suspended, disbarred, or otherwise administratively dealt with, respondent opted to
focus more on attacking and impugning Atty. Nava II's integrity and credibility and
conveniently brushed aside her omissions in her PDS as mere error in judgment.
According to the Supreme Court, Artuz deliberately and calculatedly lied in her
answers to the subject question in her two Personal Data Sheet (PDS) to conceal
the truth and make it appear that she was qualified for the judgeship position
which she now holds. The Court disbarred from the practice of law Atty. Artuz for
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon
8, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics and ordered her name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

10
 SIA SU vs. TALABOC
A.C. No. 8538, February 17, 2020
Facts:
Sia Su alleged that she is one of the defendants in a civil case where the plaintiff
filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default. The counsel for the defendants filed
separate oppositions to plaintiff's motion, and sent copies to Atty. Talaboc, the plaintiff's
lawyer, through a messenger. However, Atty. Talaboc's staff refused to receive copies
of the said oppositions allegedly upon her instruction and did the same when
messenger served defendants’ Motion to Inhibit. The respondent advised the
messenger that she would not accept any paper from Sia Su's counsel via personal
service. Thus, Sia Su filed a complaint for disbarment against that Atty. Talaboc for
violations of the CPR. The Court required Atty. Talaboc to comment on the said petition
within 10 days from notice but he failed to. In a Resolution, the Court required Atty.
Talaboc to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with or held in
contempt of court for failure to file her comment. The Court noted that Atty. Talaboc
did not comply with the said show cause directive and then referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. In a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing, both
parties failed to appear. The Investigating Commissioner also directed the parties to
submit their respective verified position papers which the respondent failed to submit.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is guilty for violation of Canon 11 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
The respondent cannot be considered as misusing the rules of procedure that
defeats the speedy and efficient administration of justice or not observing the rules of
procedure. Service by registered mail is in accordance with or an option given under the
rules. However, respondent’s willful disobedience of the lawful orders is in itself a
sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondent's attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of the Commission and of the Supreme Court constitutes
utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's conduct indicates a high
degree of irresponsibility. A Court's resolution is not to be construed as a mere request,
nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. The Court ruled that
unjustified refusal to obey the orders of the IBP constitutes blatant disrespect,
amounting to conduct unbecoming a lawyer. The court finds respondent Atty. Editha
P. Talaboc guilty of violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

11
 VARGAS vs. ARCILLA, JR.
A.C. No. 10456, September 8, 2020
Facts:
Vargas alleged that Atty. Arcilla failed to file the pleading within the required
period, and was only able to do so after the lapse of two (2) months. Claiming that
this failure of Atty. Arcilla led to his conviction, Vargas urged the Court to impose a
disciplinary sanction against Atty. Arcilla for failing to defend his client's cause to the
best of his ability. Atty. Arcilla did not deny the allegation of Vargas. however, he
maintained that it was an honest mistake and was done without malice. He admitted
that he had completely forgotten about the draft and failed to file the formal offer of
evidence within the period required by the RTC due to his heavy volume of work. Atty.
Arcilla explained further that Vargas was convicted by the RTC due to its appreciation of
the whole body of evidence in the case and not because Vargas failed to file his formal
offer of evidence on time.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is liable for his omission to timely file his client’s formal
offer of evidence.
Ruling:
Atty. Arcilla does not deny his failure to timely file the formal offer of evidence on
behalf of Vargas, but posits that it was committed by pure inadvertence and was not
attended with malice. The failure, however, is by itself a sin of omission on his part.
It amounts to a violation of Canon 12, Canon 17, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
Thus, the fact that Vargas may not have been prejudiced with the negligence of Atty.
Arcilla is beside the point. Prejudice to clients would only serve to compound a lawyer' s
negligence, but would not exculpate him or her from liability. In the same manner, the
excuse of a heavy workload will not justify a lawyer's negligence. Lawyers are expected
to prosecute or defend the interests of their clients without need for reminders. The
Court finds Atty. Felipe C. Arcilla, Jr. guilty of violating Canon 12, Canon 17,
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

12