LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION REVIEWER

No. 1
NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO vs ATTY. JAMES
BENEDICT FLORIDO

CANON/RULES VIOLATED:
Canon 10 / Rule 10.01 / Rule 10.02

CODE TO REMEMBER:
Spurious CA Resolution / Custody of Children

FACTS
Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido is the legitimate
spouse of respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido but
they are estranged and living separately from each other.
They have 2 children: Kamille Nicole Florido, 5 years old
and James Benedict Florido, Jr, 3 years old, both of whom
are in the custody of the complainant.

Sometimes in December 2001, respondent went to

complainant’s residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental
and demanded that the custody of their 2 minor children
be surrendered to him. He showed complainant a
photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the CA
which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child
custody.

Complainant asked respondent for the original copy

of the alleged resolution of the CA but respondent failed
to give it to her. Complainant examined the resolution
and saw that it bore 2 dates: November 12, 2001 and
November 29, 2001. Sensing something, she refused to
give custody of their children.

In January 2002, while complainant was with her

children in the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City,
respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly
arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the
custody of their children. He threatened her to forcefully
take them away with the companions who were allegedly
part of the NBI.

Complainant immediately sought assistance of the

Tanjay City Police Station where they were escorted to
the police station. To diffuse the tension, complainant
agreed to allow the children to sleep with respondent for
1 night on a condition that he would not take them away
from Tanjay City.

Early morning of January 16, 2002, complainant

received an information that a van arrived at the hotel
where the respondent and their children were staying and
would take them to Bacolod City.
 Respondent filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City a
verified petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus asserting his right to custody on the basis of the
alleged CA Resolution. Complainant verified the
authenticity of the alleged resolution and obtained a
certification stating that no such resolution had been
issued.

IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be

suspended from practice for a period of 3 years. IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report but
with modification that the penalty be increased to 6
years.

ISSUE
WON respondent can be held administratively liable
for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious
Resolution.

RULING

Respondent claimed that he acted in good faith in

invoking the CA Resolution which he honestly believed to
be authentic. This claim was belied by the fact that he
used and presented the resolution several times:

1) in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas

Corpus
2) when he sought assistance of the PNP of Tanjay
City to recover custody of their minor children

Since it was the respondent who used the spurious

resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its
fabrication.

Atty. James Benedict Florido is suspended from the

practice for 2 years.
No. 2
LEAH ADORIO vs HON. LUCAS BERSAMIN

CANON/RULES VIOLATED:
Canon 11 / Rules 11.03 / Rule 11.04

CODE TO REMEMBER:
Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum

FACTS:
The complainant Philip See and his former private
prosecutor Atty. Leah Adorio of the King & Adorio Law
Offices with address at #40 Landargun St., Quezon City,
are found guilty of direct contempt for disrespect to the
Court and its Presiding Judge.

Petitioner was counsel for Philip See, the private

complainant, involving violations of BP 22 pending before
the sala of respondent Judge.

Unknown to the petitioner, counsel for the accused

filed several requests addressed to the Branch Clerk of
Court for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum requiring
officials of several banks to bring before the court
microfilm copies of various checks.

On the date of the presentation of the prosecution’s

evidence, petitioner came to court surprised by the
presence of the bank officials therein. An argument
heated in the court between Adorio and Atty. Rivera and
Judge Bersamin.

Petitioner prayed that:

1) the judge inhibit himself from hearing the
criminal cases
2) said cases be re-raffled to another court
3) the hearing of said cases be suspended
pending the resolution of the Motion for Inhibition

The trial court granted the motion. In the same

order, declared petitioner and her client in direct
contempt. The Court considered them to be irresponsible
and disrespectful especially the accusations that the Court
had come under the control of the accused and had
committed irregularity of procedure.

ISSUE:

WON these statements constitute direct contempt

is the issue which confronts this Court.
RULING:
The Court said that there was no irregularity in the
issuance of the subpoena duces tecum. Requests by a
party for the issuance of subpoenas do not require notice
to other parties to the action.

The Court also found nothing irregular in the

accused’s arraignment. The Judge gives no special favor
and in fact, it is a common knowledge that order like that
are easily reconsidered/lifted. Waiting saved so much of
the courts and parties time as it did away with the usual
motion for reconsideration and the necessity for a
resetting.

The Court ruled that respondent judge did not

commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner
guilty of direct contempt.

Atty. Adorio and intervenor Philip See will fine P200

only.

No. 3
 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE
RAUL ALMACEN
Original Case: Antonio Calero vs Virginia Yaptinchay

CANON/RULES VIOLATED:

CODE TO REMEMBER: Denial of the court / Ridiculed

the Court for calling them as “not just blind, but deaf and
dumb”

FACTS:

Atty. Almacen is the counsel of the respondent in

the case Antonio Calero vs Yaptinchay. The trial court
rendered judgment against Almacen’s client. 20 days
later, he moved for its reconsideration. He served on the
adverse counsel a copy of the motion, without notifying
the time and place of hearing. Because no objection to
the record has been interposed, the trial court elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals. Hence, these series of
petitions/motions/appeals:

PETITIONS/MOTIONS FILED BY ALMACEN

which were all DENIED:

1) Appeal by Certiorari – denied by a

minute resolution
2) Motion for reconsideration
3) Petition for leave to file a 2 nd motion
for reconsideration and for extension of time..

Due to numbers of denials from the Court, Almacen

filed his “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of
Title”. The Court withhold action to the petition until he
shall have actually surrendered his certificate.

The Court required Atty. Almacen to show cause

“why no disciplinary action should be taken against him.”
In his written answer, there was no apology. Instead, it
was abundant in sarcasm and innuendo.

The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide

“only those cases which present questions whose
resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the
particular facts and parties involved.

ISSUE:

WON the utterances and actuations of Atty.

Almacen are properly the object of disciplinary sanctions.

RULING:
 ACTS DONE TO THE COURT BY ALMACEN:
1) Surrender his lawyer’s certificate which
was purely protestative
2) Picturing his client as “a sacrificial victim
at the altar of hypocrisy
3) Branding the members as “calloused to
pleas of justice”
4) Caused the publication in the papers of an
account of his actuations
5) Express of no regret and offered no
apology when called upon to make an explanation

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an

officer of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly
respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts
of courts and judges. As a citizen and as officer of the
court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right,
but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No
law may abridge this right. Nor is he
³professionallyanswerable for a scrutiny into the official
conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to
legal animadversion as a citizen. Atty. Almacen is
suspended from the practice of law until further orders

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen is suspended from the

practice of law until further notice. He may prove to the
court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of
law.

No. 4
JORGE MONTECILLO & QUIRICO DEL MAR
 vs
FRANCISCO GICA, MAGNO GATMAITAN, JOSE
LEUTERIO, RAMON GAVIOLA

CANON/RULES VIOLATED:
Canon 11 / Rules 11.03 / Rule 11.04

CODE TO REMEMBER:
3 Justices of CA / “stupid or fool”

FACTS:

Mr. Francisco Gica filed a complaint for oral

defamation against Jorge Montecillo for allegedly calling
the former “stupid” or a “fool”. However, the Cebu City
Court found that Montecillo did not call Gica “stupid”,
hence, his acquittal. Gica was also compelled to pay
Montecillo P500 for moral damages, P200 as
compensatory damages, and P300 as attorney’s fees.

Mr. Gica appealed from the decision of the Cebu

City Court to the Court of First Instance of Cebu but the
latter upheld the decision of the former. Thus, the case
was elevated to the Court of Appeals for review,

The 4th Division of the CA, in a decision penned by

Hon. Magno Gatmaitan, and concurred by Associate
Justices Jose Leuterio and Ramon Gaviola, Jr., reversed
the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. It
favored Gica on the ground that the preponderance of
evidence favored Gica on the basis of:

1) the principle that “positive must

prevail over the negative evidence”
2) “some words must have come from
Montecillo’s lips that were insulting to Gica”

The appellate court decided that Gica shall be

awarded of P500 as damages.

Atty. Quirico del Mar moved for a reconsideration

with a threat by mentioning the provision of the RPC on
“knowingly rendering unjust judgment” and “judgment
rendered through negligence”, and that the CA allowed
itself to be deceived. The appellate court denied the
motion. Del Mar persisted in his 2nd motion wherein he
made another threat.

The Appellate Court ordered del Mar to explain

within 10 days why he should not be punished for
contempt of court. Del Mar made a written explanation
wherein he stated that the Appellate Court could not be
threatened and he was not making any threat but only
informing the latter of the course of action he would
follow.
 On the same date, del Mar sent a letter to the
Justices of the 4th Division informing them that he send a
letter to the President of the Philippines. Respondent
again sent another letter to the same Justices wherein he
reminded them of a civil case he instituted against
Justices of the SC for damages amounting to P200K for a
decision rendered not in accordance with law and justice,
stating that he would not like to do it again.

Del Mar filed a complaint against the 3 justices of

the appellant court but the SC denied the same. He filed
his motion for reconsideration and wrote a letter
addressed to the Clerk of Court requesting the names
of the Justices who supported the resolution
denying his petition, together with the names of the
justices favoring his motion for reconsideration.

Del mar was given 5 days to submit a

memorandum in support of his explanation. He stated
that:

1) he suffered repeated strokes of high blood

pressure which rendered him dizzy and unstable
mentally and physically;
2) his sight is blurred and his reasoning is
faulty;
3) he easily forgets things and cannot readily
correlate them;
4) he has decided for reasons of sickness
and old age to retire from the practice of law.

RULING:
Del Mar has scant respect for the two highest
courts of the land when claimed that thy knowingly
rendered unjust judgment. His allegations acted with
intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law.
He was suspended indefinitely.

No. 5
ROGELIO VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. AMADO DELORIA
CANON/RULES VIOLATED:

CODE TO REMEMBER:
Refund of P69K plus interest rate

FACTS:

This is in connection with the HLRB Case entitled

“Spouses Conrado De Gracia v Estate of Jaime Gonzales”.

Atty. Deloria, a former full-time Commissioner of

the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB),
appeared as a counsel for the spouses De Gracia. The
case was assigned to Villanueva upon the latter’s
designation as Arbiter.

Villanueva avers that a decision in that case

required the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to refund to the
spouses De Gracia the amount of P69,000.00 plus
interest at the prevailing commercial interest rates.

Atty. Deloria filed a Motion for Issuance of

Substitute Judgment and for Consignation claiming that
the Estate of Jaime Gonzales does not want to pay
interest based on commercial interest rates.

Villanueva states that:

1) the check was drawn against Atty.
Deloria’s personal checking account in violation of Canon
16 of the Code
2) allegedly used his connections in the
HLURB to prevent Villanueva from releasing an order
denying Deloria’s motion
3) assisted his client in filing an unfounded
criminal case against him with the purpose of getting
even with Villanueva for
denying his motion.

Deloria denies any wrongdoing and sought the

dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. He avers
that:
1) the refusal of the Estate of Jaime
Gonzales to pay the interest stipulated in the decision is
evident from the various motions it has
filed
2) the spouses De Gracia requested him to
advance the amount intended for consignation as they
were then on vacation in the US
3) he did not exert any influence on the
HLURB to rule in his client’s favor

Investigating Commissioner Renato Cunanan

submitted a report recommending that Atty. Deloria be
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and/or a
fine of P20K. The case was annulled and set aside by the
IBP for lack of merit.

The report and recommendation of the

investigating commissioner appears to be based solely on
the Rollo of the case which the court sent to the IBP. The
IC did not conduct any hearing to determine the veracity
of the allegations in Villanueva’s Complaint and
truthfulness of Atty. Deloria’s answers.

A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement

which may not be dispensed with except for valid and
compelling reasons.

Hence, the instant administrative case is

REMANDED to the IBP for further proceedings.

No. 6
 RENERIO SAMBAJON, RONALD SAMBAJON,
CRISANTO CONOS, FREDILYN BACULBAS
vs
ATTY. JOSE A. SUING

CANON/RULES VIOLATED:

CODE TO REMEMBER:

FACTS:

Sambajon, et. al., are employees of Microplast

Incorporated and/or Johnny and Manuel Rodil, wherein
Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel of the latter.

The Labor Arbiter declared Microplast Inc. guilty of

Unfair Labor Practice and directed to reinstate all the
complainants to their former position with full backwages
(P236,225.82).

Individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims have

been signed and sworn to by 7 complainants in the
presence of respondent. However, 4 of 7 who executed
the Release Waiver and Quitclaim denied having signed
and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter.

IBP Commissioner Salvador Hababag, who

conducted the investigation, recommended that
respondent be faulted for negligence and that he be
reprimanded. The Board of Governors approved and
adopted the recommendation of IBP.

ISSUE:

WON respondent can be disbarred for his alleged

manipulation of 4 alleged RELEASE WAIVER AND
QUITCLAIM.

RULING:

Atty. Suing was found guilty of negligence and

gross misconduct. Hence, his suspension for 6 years.

The Court says that a lawyer serves his client with

diligence by adopting that norm of practice expected of
men of good intentions.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to

assist in the administration of justice. He is an instrument
to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to
obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct.

No. 7
CESAR LANTORIA
 vs
ATTY. IRINEO BUNYI

CANON/RULES VIOLATED:

CODE TO REMEMBER:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: