Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Basic Legal Ethics Chapter 6

    Uploaded by

    PraPra
    26 views38 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    26 views38 pages

    Basic Legal Ethics Chapter 6

    Uploaded by

    PraPra

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 38
    -ASUNYEY ois DSHARMENT CASES Fatima, however ausled that the signatures in the Real te Mortgage and Alavi both notarizedon June 2, 2006, were ‘She ascorted that Atty. Parada di not require the persons appeared before him to prevent any valid dentfaton. Fatima ‘hat Aty. Parade manually forged the signature of Salli, es and Dante, a witnenss tothe Real Estate Mortgage. She that er sister, Theres was schizophrenic ince 1975 Fatima averred that Atty. Parady had no notarial authority aa cetifed the Clerk of Court of tae RTC Chapter VI A SURVEY OF 2015-2016 DISBARMENT CASES Part 2016 Selected Disharment Cases (JANUARY-JULY, 2016) 1) Maria Fatima Japitana v. Aty. Sylvester C.Parado, ‘A.C. No. 10888 (formerly CBD Case NO. 08-2514) January 26, 2016 (Per Curiam) ‘Ths isa complaint fed against reepondent for performing notarial act without authority todo 90, knowingly notariing forged locument, and notarzing documents without requiring sulicient ‘and Recommerdation of the IRP: ‘The Investigating Commissioner opined. that there was no idence wo support tha Aty. Parado lod as the court had ot set his testimonies. He concluded that it was not proven that at forged the assed documents and notarized the sine However, the Commissioner found that respondent wat est wen he testified that he was intuedn notarial commission Sdentigcation fom the signatories, ve until 2008 His daim wa belied bythe cotfiation ested = the Clerk of Court ofthe RTC stating that Atty. Paredo had not ‘issued « notarial emission for 2006. The Commissioner suspension from the practice of aw for one year ‘The IBP Board of Governors recommended that Ay. Parades ‘commission be immediately REVOKED and DISQUALL ‘rom being commision for two years and SUSPENDED the practice of law fr sx months, Ft tite mond Bt a wn Pare an Te se Ee seein ater Sti hae ort age reel te ee he aan ae crest Gras auntie onc tact Fees aaron tree ae eee Seber omer ntti) MMe a tyes a gma enlace bn et Soc ef a ppeiiy saan onc ols ‘issued under the name of RC Lending. On February 2009 it filed he fea se tee ler fad that ade meetuneg oye abe ed MMM Parke cs Soret a eee ered Pie epee beeper tere stom Court's Ruling: ‘The Cour agrees inthe findings o BP but modifies the penalty Under the 2004 Russ on Notaral Practica, a person commis: ‘as 4 notary public mey perform notarial acta in any place the territorial jrsdiction ofthe commissioning court for = of two years commoncing the fist day af January ofthe year 8 which the commiasoning ie made, Commission either means the ‘rant of suthorty to perform notarial authority or the written ei ence of authority. ‘Without a.commission, lawyer is unauthorized to perform any ofthe notarial ace lawyer who act asa notary pubic without the ‘ecrseay notarial commission i Fein in his professional dutie snd rsponsiilitios. Atty. Parado knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006inspite sf tho abeence ofa notarial commission forthe sald period. Further, Ihe wa dishonest when he tetfed in court that he had notarial commission effective until 2008, when in truth he hud none. At. ‘Paradls misdeeds run afol of his duties and responsibilities, both fase lawyer and notary publi. Morsover, respondent did ot claim to personally know the persons who executed the said decament. Hence, the presentation SECTCe was invufcient bcnuse those ean not be considered az ‘competent evidence of identity as dfinod by the Rus. Reliance on the CTC alone isa punishable indiscretion by the notary pubic Section 200) Rulo IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice aquired the presentation of compstat evidence of identity, f the ‘persons appearing before the notary publics nt personaly known tobi Section 12, Rae fhe aame rules defines competent evidence ofidentity wx: ‘At least one current identification document issued by sn official agency bearing the photograph and signature ofthe individual or ‘The oath or affirmation of one credible witness not prey to the instrument, document or transection, who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or two credible wirneases neither of whom is Driv tothe instrament, document or transaction who each Dersonaly knows the individual and shows othe notary publi ‘document any identification WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sylvester Parado w SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned ‘as notary public. 2) Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame v. Atty. lzer S. Orro, A.C. No. 10045, February 23, 2016, penned by jutice Bersaraln ‘The fiduciary duty of every lawyer towards his clients requires to conscientiously actin advancing and safoguaring tho later His file or molec to do constitutes serious breach of Tawyers oath andthe canons of professional eles, and renders Talo for grose misconduct that may warrant his suspension the practice of law Complainants spouses engaged tho servies of respondent Despite due notic, the Ramiscals and respondent di not during the echedled mandatory conferences ae by the [BP ld Chey eubmat ther reopective evdensn, TBP Commissioner Hectar Almeyda rendered hin findings ‘fet that respendent had violated Canon 18, Rulee 18.03, 1804 ofthe CPR, 3nd recommended his suspension fom the ot law ‘The Board of Governars adopted. the findings of the ‘but increned the period of suspension to two year, Pt ‘paso LBGAL CS A SURVEY oF 28 ae DISBARDENT CASES ee allege than 2010, be met. Ay Saba thro Sina Din ti ced tat Ay, Sede Sins ass hwy snd haestnes Cea? intent et at nied ote ening oe ont ain ca Ay. Slvde ene the etplinat Boat ts bani goeanes hat he weld ena Inter ee cry land hah ws eared Rulings of the Court: ‘The lawyer's oath states tha: “Twill delay no man for money cor malice, and will conduct mjelf a lawyer according to the best ‘tiny knee and inretion, with ll ood fidelity a wel tothe ‘hurts aa to my dente” Ife violates th cath, he contravenes the (CPR particularly Canon 17, ales 18,09 and 1804 ‘Canon 17—A lawyer owes fdality tothe cause of his cent ‘and he hall be minal othe trust and confidence repose in him. ‘Canon 18— A lawyer shal crv his cent with competence sand digence Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not noglect Tegal matter ‘entrusted to him: and his negligence in eonnection therewith shall ‘der him Bele Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall kop the client informed ofthe status of his ate and shall respond within a reasonable ime tthe ‘dans request for information It ie beyond debate, therefore, that the relationship of the swyer andthe cent becomes imbued with trust and confidence fram the moment thatthe lawyer-client relationship commence, with the Iwyer blag bound to serve is clients with fll competence, and | cad to ther case with utmost diligence care and devotion. "To accord with thie highly Sducary relationship, the lint expects thelawyer toe always mindfl of the formers egal afi ‘Sse coontil par of their highly fiduciary relationship, Ue cient {Senitled tothe periodic and fll updates from the lawyer om the ‘Sevelopments ofthe eave. The layer who noglets to perform hin ‘bligatons violates Rule 1803 of Canon 18 of the CPR. “Accordingly, the Court found and docared Atty. Bagae 8. Ory euilty of wating Canon 17 and Rules 1.08 and 18.04 af the CPI: End SUSPENDS him fom the practice of lw for a period of TWO ‘YEARS EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE, with the STERN WARNING {hat any simile infraction in the fature willbe dale with mare severely, ‘Upon presentment, however complainant was shocked t les the aforementioned cherks were diahonored an these ere from insufficient hinds o a lowed nooant. Complainant made several verbal and wet demands upon Satvadn who tf openy communi with Ki, ating ‘Would ot absend from his obligations apd that be wae Iaving dlculty iqsdating his assets and collecting from his ‘rom his 1) Engel Paul Aca. Atty. Ronaldo P.Salvado, January 26,2016, A.C: No, 10982 (Per curiam) Complainant fled this complaint for disbarment rain eopondent in 2012 for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 Rale.02 of the CPR. we ‘nasICLROAL ETHICS -ASURVEY cr i 6 DIORARAENT a xoretion hi “desire and willingnes to ete whatever it due 0 the complainant” IBP’s Recommendation: ‘The TEP Commissioner recommended for a, sivmonth surpencion for engaging in a conduct that adverooly refets on is Freee tracice lew and for bebaving ina scandalous manner Arne cdi ofthe legal profension. ALi. Salvado's at of iauing tae rtboutsulicient funds to cover the same constituted willl Siete tend immoral conduct which undermine the public fonfidence in the lal profesion. ‘The Board of Governors adopted ond approved the Com tioncrs recommendation however the period of suspension ‘vas incensed to two years WHEREFORE, theCour finds Atty. Ronaldo Salvado GUILTY sgRule 1.01 Canon 1nd Rule 03 ofthe CPR. Accordingly, "SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of ‘The Court's Rul ‘The Court sustained the findings ofthe TBP-BOG end adopts its recommendation in part. 4) Spouses Jonathan and Bstor Lopes. Atty. Sinamay Administrative Case No. chraary istrative 7618, February % 2016, ise complaint ed agninst respondent for numerous epstd vations he CPR and ty aling to prom bar a counsel and tortura complainant’ mney despt ‘EDT erent teasing the narative has employed. The pai ney derpite Oe ntined to rely on representations made by Iyer 8 1 inde a lnwyer is neceasarly Tender of the community, Tnaked up tas mode ae, Second, Te must be pointed out that the denials proffered vy Ato Siva cannot bebe th dishonor of the checks. Hi by AM Selanmtnn that the checks were mere securities ct strined imancod. Of all people, Ines ar expected to ful ‘Rnprehend the legal import of bouncing checks enc, the excuse of uli snd inadvertence” deer scant consideration. Surly, Atty. Sara is amare that ‘alco tote Catitatin an thea be nah to reaondn, no ptiton wa ed ring heey ‘Blige of lawyers. When he imu ce checks By ss casa : i te egal preesson and created the public impression oF, complainants, through Jonathan's employer crite th lf ermvenince tht cou be ua, bude respondent eer requesting that complainants bealiowed duced ten personal whims and deies ‘Tied. The Court cannot overonk Atty. Salvador’ decsving the RTC cf Sen Temando Ct, La Union, Be 0 de rear, rade payment of hi ligations Instead of disp eyint Pro, Case No #000, Ths, complainants sured tne tae it in June, 2007 ony to find ot that: oN Comlainast led that smatine in dune 2006, ad w ‘abroad, they sectred the services of respondent as acon with th intention ost snr chi hel Breen cuisines arena Chats eek ati pad “rpnden tho emownt of PTB OG0 whch recived by the lator Afow mont ir oon Oxo 8 arpesely cae bck t he Pape fora t-week eminent adoption cow ttre te proper Baia gece oct neice wad steel urns ASURVEY OF 2015.6 DISHARME CASES of logal matier entrusted to him by his lent constitutes ble noglgence fer which he must be held administratively sin this cae When respondent filed to return the amount of P75,000 ing legal fos, she violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the fas well ae Canon 16 Canon 16 — A lanyer shall old in trust all moneys and oso hi lent that may come nts his possesion. Rule 16.01— A lanyor shall acount forall money or property oe received fro from the clon Ale 16.03 — A lawyer shal deliver the funds lent when dv or upon demand. Verily, the relationship betwoon a lawyer and his client is iduciary and preserbes on anwar a great fidelity and god "The highly diary nature ofthis relationship imposes jon Pre. Case No 290 refered to patton fr the decision of we prorumptive death of another fers fled by ‘other lawyer and 1) Respondent ha yet ole ptition for adoption on their onal ‘Uery demayed complainants withdrew all their seuments trom wpe cody a hired spate lnwyer 1 bane thelting af the adoption case. Moreover, complainants demanded the return of he amount of P6000 given as lp fe, Hower ‘eendetreaedtorerarsuchmeny stoig hase tana "the donee return -ncepance es Inve SF hing emlainnt led the instant admiitatve ove Stine repro before hs Cour ‘The IRP's Report and Recommendation ‘The Investigating Comminsioner found respondent amin- latrtively lable and recommended the penalty of suspension fr three years and return the amount of P7500 with lgal interest 0 ‘complainants for his own usin veltion of the trust repose in him by Such act is a gross voltion of general morality, as well, en Respondent alo conmittedactof deception ngninst her lente he misrepresented to them Ut the adoption procedings tommenced and ‘hata docket number Spl, Pro Cave Ne, even provided snd purportedly fled before the RTC. Such ations resulted In complainants pring through the of coming back tothe Philippines, a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 which provides that: 1A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the the land and promote respect fr Law and loge! provssee, Iewae: ‘Whether or not respondent shoud be held administratively Vile for voting the CPR. "The Court’s Ruling: wrens y BP Connie rene acts nts Ragrnt wlio Ble 1808, Cann 18a he ee auc utes Ta 7808 — A nwo at cic» no aa cule Aust hci ahaa oe cea eto opthcun eflinctnsoi tl sng ei pc nd and uh cen aa eta enna ecco ot cred ieee eo Sone i pnd pe in, Ptr «wet Alawyor shall serve his lint with competence 1.01 —A lawyer shall ot engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceit condi. ofices ofthe Court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, Monet, nd fai dealing Indubitably respondent fall short of sch ‘when she committed the afore descrbed et of deception 1 asic LecaL-enites ‘aginst complainants, Such acts are not only unacceptable, GRiracefal and dishonorable to the logal profession; they reveal tha moral ws that make him unfit to practice law. ‘The acto of respondent diaregarding the directives of the Investigating Commissioner © attond the mandatory eanforence Aad Submits postion paper contravenes Canon 11 and Canon 12, ule 12.04 Canon 11 —A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial fiers and should iit on similar ‘conduct by others. Canon 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it hie duty to eit in the speedy and ecient administration of justice ‘Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall nt unduly delay cae, impede ‘the execution of jadment or misuse court proves WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos is found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 1, Rule 1204 of Canon 12, les 1601 and 1603 of Canon 16, and Rule 1808 of Canon 18 of the CPR. Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three {@) years effective upon the finality of this Decision, with a ‘Sern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts ‘Fillbe dealt with more severely. Purthermore, respondent is ORDERED to return to com plsnants the legal fee ae received frm the latter inthe amount EF P1s,000 with logel intrest, within 80 days from finality ofthis Decision Failure to comply withthe foregoing directive wil warrant the imponition ofa more svere penalty (Gince respondent received the aforesaid amount. as part cof het Toga fees, tne Court thus finds the return herent to bei ‘SEE with legal interot as tecommended bythe TBP Investigating (Commissioner) 5) Cheryl B. Vasco-Tamaray _v. Atty. Deborah Z Dagute, A.C. No. i0868 (Cormerly CBD Case No. 07-2041) Sanuary 26,2016, Per Curiam ‘Does pretending to be counsel fora partyin case and using forged signature ina plesding merit the penalty of disbarment? Chor Vasc Tmaray fd Complaint Aidavi oe on Jly 30, 7, aging that seapendenc Ay, Dagus ted he: ea, Pec fr Desration of Naty of Marge er const her sgt on the etn alleged hat ty Dele ned the Patton fr Declaration ot 3 Sariags ul rp” olin o Vor. _Conplninant nae hat in December 208, A ia Dee ey. Dag er that a Fett dalton of Say fied befre the Ragen Trl Coon of Mantilape Ch, gruary 2007 Auy Dogue tod her ‘a appear efor the Proseiors Ofer sf Mustnlupa Cy: On March 8 2007, ‘hpere tele the City Posetore Oe and nt dais, Sh ask Ay. Dal oe hr coy of the ut Ay. Daqusreuned Tes comlnnan aed tht he sind a copy ofthe Pttion i of ty otro sc 7 othe na reed ose that va ‘signed and filed by her. ieee Vasco-Tamaray alloped that she id nt fie the Petition, that tre was forged by Atty. Daguls, and that her purported ax certifate aopearing onthe jurat was other case never resided in Muntinlupa Cty. She attached certifications rove that she was never a resident of Muntinlupa City fact the isa resident of Brgy. Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon 2000 tll prevent. Vasco-Temaray alo llaged that the for Declaration of Nullty of Marriage was Atty. Dequis) ta by Leonsarte Tamaray, ‘Respondent alleged that she is counsel for Vaso-Tameray and et respondent Aty. Deborah Z Daguis shouldbe held liable fir making it appear that she is counsel Cheryl YasooTamarey and for the alloged use ‘nature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of ee ne as It eter 10 AstoLDOAL ETHICS uty of doing no falsehood nor consent to the deing of ny in court as ‘stated inthe lawyer's oth, Canon 1— A lawyer shall uphold the Conattution, obey tho las ofthe land and promote respect for law and for legal proceses. ale 1.01—A lawyer shall ot engng in unlawful dishonest, immer or deceitful conduct. Based on the facts i seems Leomarto Tamaray intended to file the petition for declaration of nallity of marrage. However, reapondene mado it to appear that complainant, not her clint Léomarte Tamaray was the petitioner. There is probability that respondent aid not want Leomarte Tamaray to bo the petitioner ‘ocmuse he would have to adit that he entered into bigamous Iarvnge, the admission of which may eubjot him to criminal Tai Tn addition, if i is true chat complainant was respondent’ ‘lion, then there appears to bo no reason for respondent to advise ber "aot to oppose Leomarte’s decision to have thelr marrage sulle” Records support complainant’ allegation that she never received any court process because her purported address inthe ‘etiton isthe adden of Leomarte Tamaray. ‘The Certfonte of Marriage of complainant and Leomarte ‘Tamaray states that Loomarte's recdence io at "Summerville ‘Subd. Muntinlupa” while complainant's residence is at “Hermon ‘St. Gagelangin Toado, Manila” During the investigation of the Proeseutor it appears that complainant left their house sometim TL, Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 1001 when the allowed the uso of « forged signature on petition she prepared and notarized. Complainant loge that her signature on the Petition wat forged: Reapondent merely denied complainants allegation ‘A comparison of the signatures appearing onthe Petition for Declaration of allityofMarsiage andoncomplainantsidentifation ‘ards show a difference in the stroke of the ltrs “=” and "0" Further, complainant’ rigntures inthe documents attached tothe ‘seconds consistently appear tobe ofthe same height On the other Fhand her alleged signature on ch Petition for Desaraton af Nulity coapren a |ASURVEY OF oi 6 DISHARMENT CASES nasa big eter “." Hens, it seems that complainant seo the Petition lor Declaration of Nullity of Marriage wat While thre is no evidence to prove that reepondent forged 3's signature, hefact remains that respondent allowed Rule7.03—Alawyo:shallnotengagein conduct that advoresly on his fitneee to practice Iw, nor shal be, whether in public ral i bhai acandnnus mane the dred the ‘Canon 10— A lawyer owes candor, fairmeas and good fith to ule 10.01 — A lawrer shall not do any flachoo, nor consent doing of any in Cou, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court riled by any arti. Respondent's act of allowing the se of «forged signature on ‘she prepared ard notariaed demonstrates a lack of tral 1M, The Court finds that respondent violated Canon 17: ‘Canon 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to th caus of hi lent ‘complainant; who isthe oppecing party of her cient “Tamaray, in the came case TV, ‘The Courtnotesthat respondent may have violated Canon. Rulo 1503 when she entered her appearance as counsel for sia ASIC LBOAL TICs |ASURVEY OF oi ae DISGARENT CASES "Tho penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed. upon respondent ‘ule 15.08—A lanyer shall not represent conflicting interests Spree ch DF ‘except by written consent of lleoneerned given after full dislsure ‘the fae ‘The rationale for Canon 15 a8 discussed in Samon vB: “The rule prohibiting confit of istorest wa fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a eit ‘hone interest ir directly advero to any of hi present or former ‘ents In the same way, a lawyer may only be allowed represent ‘clon involving the sume or substantially related matter that fs materially adverse to the former cient only if the former lint fonten tot ae eoneultaton. The rulois grounded inthe fiduciary higation of loyal Respondent was engeged by Leomarto Tamaray to be his ‘counsel when the Petition fr Delaration of Nllity of Marziage was fled, respondent signed the Petition ab counsel fr complainant. I Feepondent war indeed engaged as couneel by complainant, then {here is confit of interest in ioation of Canon 15, Rule 16.0, However, thre is nothing on record to show that respondent swat engaged as counel by complainant. Hence, this court finds that Teopondent didnot commit cont of intrest. ‘V, Rule 199-8 has been amended by BM, No, 1645 dated October 18, 2018. 6. Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran v. Atty. Roy Balsa, AC. No, 5328, February 9, 2016, Per curiam Respondent was previouely suspended bythe Court on October 2011 for violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Canon 15 and Rae “f Canon 18 of tho CPR. ‘The Court upheld the findings of BP and suspended Aly. Baza from the peste af law for x From the records be Court found that Atty. Kian deceived nts when he asked them to unknowingly sgn decd transfering e potion oftheir land t him. When the sale ‘and pushed through, Atty. Ediza recived halt ‘mount of proceeds ven ty the buyer and falsely misled 3 nto thinking that ho would register, sing the ame ‘the remaining portion of thelr land. Thees actions, which complainants oftheir property, showed “Atty. Edna's ‘unbecoming amember of the legal profession, ‘The Cour, in its Decision dated October 19, 2011 1) Suspended Atty. Bdiza from the practice of lw for six month, efetiveupon recsipt of the Decision 2) Assisted Him to return to complainants the two ‘ets of documents that he misled them and Sartga Epal into | Sing; end 3) Ordered Avy. Ediza to pay complainants the amount of P125,188.88 representing the amount he dacived them into eying him with legal interest wnt flly paid ‘The Court further WARNED Atty. Ediza that a repetition same or similar ats i the future shall be dealt with mote ‘ecpondent fledan MR on November 2011 but was denied Court ‘On May 29, 2012, Aty. Ediza fled x Manifertation of Com (on Order of Scspension togsther with a sworn statement that he dessted rom the practice of law for ax months. In a resolution datce September 3, 2012, the Court deferred ‘on his Manifestation and required im fo ) Submit cotications from the IBP local chapter where he is a mombsr and the offce ofthe Kxceutive Judge ‘ar ofthe Philippines wae given the power to “ssi ifthe lawyer complained of wae exanerated or meted m penalty of “lee than suspension or dizbarment"Tn addition, the case would be ‘domed terminated wales am terested party fled pttion before ‘this Court ‘The amendments t Rule 190-8 ca reiteration that only this CCourthas the power to inpase disciplinary ation on membersaf the thr The factual findings and recommendations ofthe Commission tn Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors of the TBP are ‘eoommendaory, subject to review by this Court. WHEREFORE, respondont Atty. Dsborsh Danis is found GUILTY of violating Canon I, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rulo 708, Canon 10, Rale 10.1 and Canon 17 ofthe CPR, ‘The charge for visltion of Canon 15, Rule 1508 aguinst respondent is DISMISSED, whore he practices his profession, both stating that he had Aosiatod frm the practice of law from November 18, 2011 to May 29, 012; ) Show proof of payment to complainants of 'P125,46.38 plus lgal interest, and the return of the two sts of documents that Atty Ediza misled complainants to manifest ‘whether AU. Ediza had already paid the said amount and ‘eturned the sad documents lowever, on October 17,2012 complainant informed the Court that Atty. Ediza had not paid any single centavo and neither had he returned the documents. ‘Thus, on February 25,2013, the Court noted the manifetation of complainants and ordered Aity. Ediza to show cause why he ‘should not be isiplinelly dealt with or held in contempt and to comply withthe Decision, Ina Manifestation showing caso, Atty. Ediza claimed that be ‘had no intention to dafy the Courts authority or challenge to orders that he had served his suspension, but aaked the Court to consider ‘that the two set of documents were merely fctonal: He alo claimed that he was at Joe as to which ‘oesments’ the Decision was referring to because the same where suppowedy not alleged with Dartculrity. Atty. Bdlaw alleged that due tothe ambiguity about the “documenta” the judgment was incomplete and unenforceable. ‘Mreover, Att. Bian claimed that the alleged lack of due process inthe administrative cae rendered the entre proceedings vid: and ‘consequently, even the order to pay the sum should be stricken of In its July 15, 2013 resolution, the Court disregarded the explanation of respondent and reiteraied the orignal reslution for ‘compliance by the late. On November 2013 and February 2014, complainants wrote the Chief Justioe asking for the immodiatereslution of thi ease fad information a tot stats, ‘Thuson June4, 2014, the Gort noted theetter of omplanants ‘and required rexpondent to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be ‘isciplinarliy dealt with or beheld in contempt for file to comply ‘with the October 19,2011 decision, In aly 2014 the complainanta wrote the OCJretarting Atty. aizas nia to comply withthe Cour’ directives and manifested ‘hat tags been 17 years since this depute bagan. n'a November 12,2014 reslution, the Court denied the MR pack of merit and again required Atty Hi to comply with the dated October 18,2011 ‘thas boon more Un four year since the Court promulgated Decision datod Octabr 19, 201. The Cour alse issuod sve ‘dated Soptembet 3, 2012, February 25, 2013, July 16, ‘Jane 4, 2014 and November 12, 2014 requirign respondent fomply with the October 19, 2011 resolution but he failed to by the Cour’ oder Atiy. Haizn repeatedly and blatantly ded and obstnatly defied the orders fom the Coa. ‘Thointentional delay and utar refusal o aide withthe Court's is a great diarespe to the Court which cannot be tolerated. J Ediza wilfully Tell unbcede all the warnings imposed upon despite the earir sx month suspension that was meted cu for his administrative ibility. ‘As a momber of the logal profession, Aty. Bisa has the duty © orders and procestes ofthis Court without delay and ule 12.04 of Canon 12 ofthe CPR eater ‘Canon 12 — A lawyer shall exort every effort and consider duty to assat inthe speedy and efit administration af ‘Rule 12.04 —A lawyer shall not unduly delay case, nape execution of judgment or misuse Court proesce in also remiss in following the dictates of the Court, which has sinistrative supervision over him. ‘One ofthe grounds or disbarment nor Section 27 of Re 138, a willl isobedieno of eny Inwful order of «superior court” iposing the penalty oCabartent upon Atty. Edina, the Court faware that the power to dsbar is ane to be exercised with great ‘and only in clear casos of misconduct that seriously affect and wnwilingness 9 comply with tho Court's directives, which we tiem to be a fltont to the Cours authority over members af the ‘ar, warrant an wtmostdiacplinary sanction from this Court, Wherefore, rsopondent Atty. Roy Prule Biza, having voted the CPRby committing grevemiscondactapd wilflinsubordination, [DISBARRED and hs name ordered STRICKEN OFF the Roll of ‘Atorneys effective immediatly 1. Myrna M. Devess v. Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado, ‘A.C. NO. 9574, June 21,2016 (A Per curiam decision) ‘This is a disbarment cate fled by Myra M, Devers (complainant) againet respondent Aty. Alexander M. Del Prato (Atty. Det Prado for dishonesty and for ects unbecoming a lawyer. Facts: In February 2003, Aty, Alexander del Prado bought my lot looted at No, 2242 Malvar St, Beyy. Pagase, Camarin, Caloocan City, consieting of 685.80 oq, meters and covered by ‘Trannfor Certifent Title No 17898 Use Regist of Dood ‘of Calocan City for P1500 per square meters on installment basis "Tovidenc the said sale, we executed « Contract to Sel _Atty, Del Prado tok al the copies ofthe Contract to Sell onthe Drotext that he will have the docoment notarized but he never ave mea copy ofthe said document ‘ty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation to pay me the ‘purchase pic ofthe said lt by leaving n balance of PS6E.960, ‘When I sent him a demand letter for the payment of his ‘odor recasion of sal, ho called me and told me {hat he wil mest me and my son Jlibee, Mus ranch, ‘where wil pay hs inpald balance. He likewise asked ie 0 bring the ttle over the property ‘Upon meeting Atty. Dl. Prado a elie Muss Branch, tne asked fr the tle ofthe property and T showed it to him, "Then Atty. Del Prado brought outa completely led up Deed Gt Salo end he asked ua to ign it before he wl give us his payment [After we have signed the Deed of Absolute Sele, ho gave 5,000 and he told that he would have the document fst ‘otarined before be wil give us his eomplote payment. xx At that juncture, Ay, Del Prado tried to put inside his bag our verte property bu was ae ga i rm IW that he made us sige by means of fraud as evidence inthe cit ace Id againt lim fr reacision of contract (hat misled the court. On September 2, 2014, the IBP-CBD, in ite Report and ton, stated that Atty. Del Prad's flare to answer complaint despite sevral notics and his continous absence in scheduled hearings tows his floating reistance tothe nfl ‘of tho court and flustrates his despicieney for hie oath of fas lawyer. The IB?.CBD recommended that ty. Del Prego the ponalty of stspension from the practice of law and as ‘ofthe bar fora poiod of 0 yea nits Notice of Ressution No. XX1.2015-014, dated January 18, the IBP-Board of Governory adopted and wpprowed with tho report and recommendation “of the CHD and “Atty. Del Prado fom the practice flaw fora period of Whether or not Atty, Del Prado is administratively lable for af allogely defrauding complainant inthe ale ofthe subj! how that they pone nnd continue to powsas the log Ter it An vanguard of our lol aye, they are to mantain nt only lego profenry at la high of mori, hore, ntwr ad air dlng Beene spat sh ty th Gl sate laser for any conduct thie wanting in morality, probity and gocd demeanor, whether euch conduct wes Sn ther posional rin peas capacity. Canon 7 fhe Coot Prfeinal Respooshity pecidelly al lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity ofthe logs Rule LOL of Canon tof the ene cole poaeribes lawyer amount of P2000 tobe entrusted to Aty. Limos, who then deliver tothe conplainant a signed alidavie of deaiatance, jae agreement, and a oint motion to approve compromise nt for ling withthe cart, ‘On October 29, 2009, the complainant gave the initial amount to Ay. Limos who in urn, signed an Acknowledgment recomizing ‘ber undertakings as counsel of BHF. Atty, Lista file Yo mect the terms of tes agreoment. i such faiure, Ay. Limos sill sought to gt fom omplsinant the next installment amount oftheir purported tbat the Inter oad ‘Thereafter, in June 2010, the complainant met BHFs tive, Camille ofl, who informed him that Atty. was no longer BAP's counsel and was not authorized ‘any setlement nor recelve any money In behalf The complainant also learned that BH di not recive the nil payment hat he gave to Atty. Limon “This prompted the complainant to send a demand letter to fidelity, honesty and integrity ofthe legal profession In the present case, Atty Del Prado committed an at which fal shor of te sacdar ofthe norm of cone required of every lawyer: He docaived the complainant ty making hor sign the ‘od of sale and making her believe that he would pay in fll the halane of the purchase price alter he had the document notarized (Complainant waited for Atty. Del Prado to mako ood his promise fo pay bot demilesevecal Some: be sutimoed renee on Ba ‘blgation which prompted her tof e cae againat him WHEREFORE, Snding reepondent Aty.Alesander Del Prado GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 af tho Cote of Profesional Responsibly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS im fom the practice of law fr Five (6) years effective upon receipt of this decision with a WARNING that a repetition ofthe same or 8 ‘Similar act wil be dale with more severely. 8 Amold Pacao, Complainant v.Atty.Sinamar Limos, Respondent, Administrative Case No. 11246, June 14,2016 Per Curiam: efore the Integrate! Bar oto Philippines TBP) Commission ‘A.complaint was fled on November 2011 by Arnold Pacao iacpline (CBD)-The IBP-CBD required Atty Limos 0 fle (Gomplainand, woking the dabarment of Atty. Sinamar Litnoa bt ae did act fle any reaponsive pleading. Respondent (ty Limos) for conduct unbecoming of « member of the Bar. comply with the eid requirement. eae ‘On ay 5, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner recommended ‘of Aly. Limos. ty. Lines was Iewise ordered Sometime in March 2008, complainant's wife Mariadel tthe complainant tho fll amount of P200,00 with interest aca former vault cutedian of BHP Pawnshop (BEE) branch in ‘atthe rate of 12% per annum from the date of her receipt Mandaluyong City, wab charged with qualified theft by BHF. AL atid amount tothe late of her retar ofthe fll amount. The ‘tho prolminary investigation, Atty. Limos appeared a counsl for Beard of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating BHE. Thereafter the case was led before the Regional Teal Cat of Mandaluyong City. ‘Tobuy peace, the complainant niiaed negotiation with BHP, ‘through Atty. Lim, for posible settlement. A meting was then “Whether or no the instant disbarment complain constitutes & frranged between the complainant and AWtj. Limos, where the thsi to dsbar Ay. Limos from the practice of law? lattor represented that sho was duly authorized by BHP. After « ‘ores of negotiations, Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is demand ‘the sum of P530,000 to be paid in full or by intallmenta. Furth ‘Tobegin wth, the Court notes that thin isnot the fit time that ‘negtation led tan agecment whereby the complainant. would pay moe in facing un tdministrative case, for she had alrondy ‘ben twice suspended from the practice of Iw, by this Cour, for three months each in Villolores. Atty. Limos and Wilkie Ay. “Limos In Vilalores, Atty. Limnos received attorneys foe of 20,000 ‘plu miscllanoous expenses of 72,000 but she fled to perf ther undertaking with hr lent; chus che was found guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty. Likewise in Wil, Atty. Limos ‘a eld administratively Hable fr ber deceitful ahd dishonest ‘conduct when she ebtained a loan of P250,000 fm her clint and {stued wo portdated checks in the late favor to py the sid loan, despite Knowledge of ineulcency of funds to cover the same. In both cases the Court, gave Aty. Limos a warning that repetition ‘ofthe samc or simile ate by her will merit a moro severe penalty ‘Once apni, for the third time, Atty. Limos ie facing an suminitrative caso before thie Court for receiving the amount of 200,000 from the complainant purportedly fra possible amicable tetllement with her iene BAP. ‘The fact that thie is Atty. Limos third tranaprion exacer: bates hor offense. The foregoing factual antecedents demonstrate her propensity to employ deelt and misrepresentation It ia not oo farfetched for tha Cour to conclude that from the very beginning, ‘Aly Limos had planned ta employ decelt on the complainant to get hold af sum of money. Such a conduct is unbecoming and does ot speak wellofa member ofthe Bar. By. her ailure to. present convincing evidence, or any. evidence for that mater, to justify her actions, Atty. Limes fled to demonstrate that she sill ostesed the integrity and morality demanded of a member of the Ber. Her seeming indilernce to the complaint brought against her was made obvious by her ‘unreasonable absence from the proceedings before the IBP. Her Senadeed fund at helping dnt cals incident was not only alleged by complainant in complainant ‘Langue of Mayors and ruled that “the people's faith in the Bren run bern of repent ato tring st Tho. Intera Philippines Board of correctly affsmed and adopted this finding ‘The League of Mayors eter, signed by noless than 19 Mayors, ‘complainant's allegations. Contrary to respondents that it shows the soitieal motive bond this cae, the letar ‘complainants credibility and. mative. The presence 19 Mayor” signatures only reinforced the appalling nator af ‘act Te rfecta the publics reaction to retpondent’s of arrogance. ‘The purpose of sdninistratve procsdings isto ensure that is protectod from lawyers who are no longer Bt for the Inthis instance, this Court willnot tolerate the arrogance herassment commit by its ofcors we aso LcAL TCS ‘Canon 7, Rule 7.03 ofthe Cade of Profesional Responsibility provides: Rule 163 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that ‘adveray reflects on ia tne to practice la or shal he whether Jn public or private Ife, behave in a scandalous manner to the ‘acre of tho logal profession. By ite, the at of huiating another in pubic by slapping thm or her on the face hints of archaracter that disregards the human dignity of another Respondent's question to complainant "iv au makatlo a ako? (‘Do you not know me”) cofims such ‘Gharacter nnd hio potential to abuse the profession as tool for balling, barasement, and discrimination. ‘This arrogance is intolerable, I discredite the legal profession by perpetuating s rtereotype thet is unreflective of the nobility UF the profesion. As fiers ofthe court and of the law, lawyers rs granted the privilgs to serve the publi, not to bully them to ‘submission Good character is continuing qualification for lawyers. This ‘Court has the power toimpree disciplinary sanctions to lawyers who Commit acts of misonduc in eltber a public or private eapacity if {hearts show them unworthy to remain fiers ofthe court. ‘This Court has previously established thet disciplinary proceedings aginst lawyers are sul genera. They are nether i Eorcriminal in nture. They are not determination ofthe partis Tights Nather, they are pursod au a matter of public interest and Ure meane to determine a lawyers fitness to continue holding the privilege of being a court ofr In Yayo v. Gat: Public interest i ie primary objective and the real question {or determination is whether ot not the attorney i til aft person {o'be allowed the privilgee as rach. Hence, in the exercise of i iceplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the {Barto eccount for is actuation as an officer of the Court withthe tnd in view of preserving the purty of te legal profession and the ‘proper and honest amination of justice by purging the profession Erimenbers who by thelr misconduct have proved themes 20 ‘oger worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities fo the ofice ofa atieney. In such posture, there can {hos be no ecasion to speak of «complainant or a prosecutor. ‘Asin criminal case, complainants in administrative actions against lnwyers are mre witnesses, They are not indispensable to the procedings I is the investigative provers and the finding ff administrative Uinblity Uhat are important in disciplinary proceedings. Hence, complainant's absence during the hearings before the Integrated Bar of the Polippines is nota bar against finding of feinnistetive ability. WHEREFORE, tke findings of fect of the Integrated Bar of the Philppince are ADOPTED snd APPROVED. Respondent “Atty. Rene 0. Medina i und wo have violated Canon 7, Rule 08 of “the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for thre 3) months. 10) THIRD DIVISION Arthur S. Tullo, Complainant, v. Atty. Grogory F. iin, Respondent, AC. No. 7110, April 20, 2016 (Penned ‘Buhongin), dcksted as A.C, No, 7110 for Gros Dishonesty prbolation of the Lavyers Oath and the Code of Professional iy In his Complain dated March 8, 2006, Tullo narrated chat became acquainted with Aty: Buhangin even during the time The was a surveyor and not yet a lawyer He alleged that as them, At. Buhangin was the one who prepared survey Tor the complainant in connection with the estate lft by hi r Brentualy, when ho became a lawyer, Tuo sought his advice concerning property owned by is mothor which was (ranferred in the names of third partis. “On June 28, 2000, by virtue of Tuli's agreement with his Atty: Buanginpropared and notariged a Ded of Waiver of ined June 20,2900 which was signed by allo hissing in “Thereafter, Telio engaged tne service of ity. uhangin to Thm in filing hoe for epee performance and damages Twas docketed ar Civil Cano No. 4686.8 entitled “Heir of 'S. Tullo, represented by Arthur S. Tuli. HeireofAremio 10 Aste LADAL enes , Patcilrepresented by Lannie Ayust” before the Regional Til Court of Baguio City, Branch 3. Through his efforts, Talo aims that andthe defendants in Civil Case No, 4808-8 agreed toa ‘etlement and that he exclusively pai the dfendanta. On December 10, 2006, to Tuli's surprise, Aty: Buhangin represented hie siblings and led a complaint egainat him ove legal tatters which he had entrusted to him, Th complaint was docketed {te Chil Case No. 6186-R pending before the Replonal Trial Court ‘t Baguio City, Branch 7 and entitled "Deagraciae S Tullo, eta “Arthas 8. Tula for recon ofthe dood of wnver of rights which te hima prepared and notarized. Tuo farther avereed that Atty ‘Bubangin made misreprosentations inthe complaint since he knew ‘beforehand that his eblings waived their eights in is favor over the Darel of ind covered by TCT No, 67146 even before Civil Case No. ed, Disqualify ty. Buhangin for his unethical eonductin gros violation of le duties and responsibilities aa a lawyer. Subsequently, 00 Slanuary 11,2006, Aety- Bubungin Hed « Motion to Withdraw as ‘ounselIewas stated inthe sad motion that Atty. Buhangin: “due ovconflet of intrest, undersigned respectfully requeste hate be ‘lle by ths Honorable Court to withdraw Ki appearance n this ‘ease ax counsel forthe plait” Complainant alleged that the actions of Atty. Bubengin wore deliberate and intentional in order to serve his own personal Interests spun! his nterests a his lint, hence, constitu grows tishonestyin vation of is ath and responsiblity aa lawyer and rotary public ‘Thos, the instant complaint fr disbarment against Atty. ‘Bubangin’ Atty. Buhangin submited hie Comment on January 12, 2007, where he admited thet sndced he hed been engaged 0 legal easel ofthe Estate of Angeline Tuli, represented by the Insts of Angeline Tullo which included among others Deagratias S. Tuo, Gloria TulloBucaoto, Tita Tul Guerrero, Anthony ‘Tuo and complainant Tuli He, however, asrved that hit legal representation was neither personel nor directed in favor of ‘complainant Tui alone but instead inthelatterseapaciyasanbeir ‘ct Angeline Tull Atty. Bubangin depsted Tull clam that the lanter personally engaged his services as legal counsel for Civil Case No. 4866 and insisted that his log representation was made for find in behalf of the ets of Angeline Tula. Atty. Buhangin alleged _ASURVEY oF 278. DISHARBENT CASES that Tulio abused th confidence lodged upon him by his siblings by. fnecutng the dood of waiver of rights in hs favor, fo the purpose of ‘Sopiving the other hers of Angoine Tulio thet lawful shares inthe ‘etas oftheir mother. Hs maintained that there was no confit of {terest when he filed the complaint forthe declaration of lity of| the waiver of rights az hewas in fact merely protecting the interests tf tie other heirs of Angeline Tula. On February 14, 2007, the Court then resalved to refer the instant ease tothe Intogated Bar ofthe Philipines for investigation, report and recommendation/deixon. ‘Mandatory conferences tetwoen the partcs were set on July 24, 2007 and September 3, 2007, However, only complainant Sippeered without couns, while Atty. Buhangi filed to appear {noth instances despite prioe notice. Thus, the TBP, in ite Order tated September 8, 2007, directed Atty, Buhangin to sow cause fihy he should not been anymore the chance to participate in The proceedings before te Commieron. Both partes wer Iikewise firecto! to submit their eri Position Papers. Again nly Tuo Iibmitid his Postion Faper while Atty. Bubangin failed anew to amply with the Order 2f the Commission, In his Position Paper fisted Ociober 8, 2007, Tulo refuted Atty. Buhangin's allegation that he represents the bere of Angeline Taio, and hat hi legal epreseatation not personal o im alone. Talo pointed out that Amis motion to withdrew ax counsel, Atzy. Buhangin had, i fact that be ie withdrawing from the ease due to cont of “Tule ikewis denied that he meant defraud and deprive ibingn oftheir shares, He asserted that it was actually Ay ‘who drafted, prepared apd even notrizod the deed of Sf alts thu, ihe knew the same to be fraudulent, why Srould he prepare md even notarze the same.

    You might also like