In Partial Fulfilment

of the Requirements for the Subject

Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics (11201)

The Lawyer and the Court: Case Digests

Submitted to:
Judge Amy Rose S. Rellin

Submitted by:
Jewel Vernesse Dane T. Deocampo
JD 202

September 30, 2022

 1

HENRIETTA PICZON-HERMOSO and BEZALEL PICZON

HERMOSO vs. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO, A.C. No. 8116, 16
September 2020, Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe

Principle in sum:

“Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one

invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private
document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law,
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.”

FACTS:

1. Complainants alleged that they are the successors-in-interest of

Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug (Estrella), the declared owner of a parcel
of land designated as Lot No. 3545 situated in Simala, Sibonga, Cebu
and registered for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 12357
(subject property).

2. Portions of the subject property were transferred and conveyed to

Spouses Salvador and Darlwin Cesar by virtue of two (2) Deeds of
Absolute Sale after the demise of Estrella and both of which were
notarized by Atty. Parado on February 15, 2007.

3. Complainants averred that on February 15, 2007, Estrella could not

have personally executed, appeared, or signed the Deeds before Atty.
Parado as she had just been discharged from the hospital in the
afternoon of the said date after undergoing confinement. As a result of
her chemotherapy treatments, Estrella's mental faculties were
deteriorating, making it impossible for her to attend to her personal
affairs and enter into a contract of sale. Similarly, Estrella’s blind
husband could not have appeared, signed, and executed the Deeds
before Atty. Parado since he was already bedridden.

4. Complainants thus filed an administrative complaint for disbarment

against Atty. Parado for purportedly notarizing two documents
without the affiants personally appearing before him, in violation of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

5. Despite several directives from the Court to file his comment to the
administrative complaint, Atty. Parado failed to do so. He also failed
comply with the directives of the IBP to file an answer to the
complaint. During the entire proceedings before the IBP, Atty. Parado
neither submitted any pleading nor appeared during the mandatory
conference.

ISSUE:
 2

A. Whether or not Atty. Parado should be held administratively liable for

violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

A. The Court finds respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado GUILTY of

violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

1. SC: “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one

invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a
private document into a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is
for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties;
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized
document would be undermined.”

2. Section 2 (b) Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires

a duly-commissioned notary public to perform a notarial act only if
the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is: (a)
in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization.

3. In other words, a notary public is not allowed to notarize a document

unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons
who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein.

4. The IBP found that Atty. Parado notarized the subject Deeds without
Estrella and Michelangelo personally appearing before him on
February 15, 2007 due to serious physical illness. Worse, it appears
that Atty. Parado was not a commissioned notary public in 2007. On
both counts, it is clear that Atty. Parado violated the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.

5. SC: “Parenthetically, in the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the

aforesaid provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice would also
constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), considering that an erring lawyer who is found to be remiss in
his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his
oath as a lawyer as well.”

6. By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public at the

time of the alleged notarization in 2007, Atty. Parado also violated the
 3

provisions of the CPR, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule

10.01, Canon 10 thereof.

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws

of the land and promote respect for law of and legal
processes.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

xxx

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the

court.

“Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor

consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.”

7. Atty. Parado also displayed an utter lack of respect for the Court, the
IBP, and its proceedings when he failed to comply with the separate
directives of the Court and the IBP to file his comment and answer to
the complaint.

8. Accordingly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of

law for a period of two (2) years; PROHIBITS him from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years; and
REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in
the future shall be dealt with more severely.

xxx

BUKIDNON COOPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY

GENERAL MANAGER WILHELMIA P. FERRER vs.
ATTY. JOSE VICENTE M. ARNADO, A.C. No. 12734, 28 July 2020,
First Division, Lopez

Principle in sum:

“If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even without any intent on

the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable
event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility
that justly attaches to a conduct far from impeccable.”
 4

FACTS:

1. November 15, 2013 – Bukidnon Cooperative Bank (Bukidnon

Cooperative) engaged the services of Asiatique International Travel &
Tours Services Co., Ltd. to reserve hotel accommodations and to
purchase airplane tickets bound for Singapore from November 27 to
30, 2013 for its board of directors and employees.

2. Noel Encabo (Mr. Encabo), the owner of Asiatique International,

received P244,640.00 from Bukidnon Cooperative as advance
payment.

3. A day before the departure, Mr. Encabo advised Bukidnon

Cooperative to postpone its travel abroad because the
accommodations were not yet confirmed. Accordingly, Bukidnon
Cooperative cancelled the trip and asked for a refund but Mr. Encabo
did not heed the demand.

4. Bukidnon Cooperative filed an action for sum of money against Mr.

Encabo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities docketed as Civil
Case No. 2241.

5. Mr. Encabo explained that the tickets were non-refundable and any
reimbursement was contingent on the airline company's approval.

6. At the pre-trial conference, Atty. Arnado asked another lawyer to

appear on his behalf and to pre-mark four electronic tickets which
Cebu Pacific Airline issued on November 18, 2013 for a flight on
November 27, 2013. The tickets were then marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10
and 11.
7. During trial, VIA Philippines' representative testified that the four
electronic tickets marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11 were altered.

8. With these, Bukidnon Cooperative filed a disbarment complaint

against Atty. Arnado before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for failing to examine the authenticity of the evidence before
presenting them in court and tolerated the commission of fraud in pre-
marking altered documents.

9. In his answer, Atty. Arnado claimed good faith because there was no
indication that the electronic tickets were not genuine and he has no
expertise to determine their authenticity. Later, Bukidnon Cooperative
withdrew the administrative case against Atty. Arnado.

ISSUE:
 5

A. Whether or not Atty. Arnado should be held administratively liable

even if Bukidnon Cooperative withdrew the disbarment complaint.

HELD:

A. Atty. Arnado should be held administratively liable even if

Bukidnon Cooperative withdrew the disbarment complaint.

1. Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is explicit that "[n]o

investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."

2. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that

"[a] lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court."
Specifically, Rule 10.01 states that "[a] lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he
mislead or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice."

3. Atty. Arnado cannot hide on the simple excuse that he has no

expertise to determine the authenticity of these documents especially
that the introduction of such evidence can potentially mislead the trial
court. His indifference further negates any claim of good faith.

4. In this case, however, it was not established that Atty. Arnado had
prior knowledge of the alteration and that he willfully submitted for
pre-marking the false evidence. Yet, his carelessness does not free
him from liability.

5. If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even without any intent on

the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable
event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility
that justly attaches to a conduct far from impeccable.

6. For these reasons, Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado is REPRIMANDED

and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

xxx
 6

EDGARDO A. TAPANG vs. ATTY. MARIAN C. DONAYRE, A.C. No.

12822, 18 November 2020, Third Division, Inting

Principle in sum:

"The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment."

FACTS:

1. Complainant alleged that he was the respondent in a labor case for

illegal dismissal and monetary claims filed by Ananias Bacalso
(Bacalso) before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The case was docketed as
NLRC Case No. RAB VII-09-2458-2009 and was dismissed for lack
of merit.

2. The LA decision became final and executory, there being no appeal

filed by Bacalso with the National Labor Relations Commission. As
counsel on record for Bacalso, Atty. Donayre received a copy of the
decision on May 31, 2010.

3. July 5, 2010 - Atty. Donayre filed another illegal dismissal complaint

in Bacalso's behalf with the same claims as the earlier case against
complainant before the LA docketed as NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 07-
1396-10.
 7

4. March 23, 2011 - the LA rendered judgment in favor of Bacalso and

ordered complainant to pay the former.

5. On appeal, the NLRC overturned the LA's ruling and dismissed

NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 07-1396-10 on the grounds of res judicata
and the lack of an employer-employee relationship between
complainant and Bacalso.

6. Complainant filed the instant administrative case against Atty.

Donayre for her alleged violation of the rule against forum shopping

7. Atty. Donayre failed to comply with the IBP’s directives to file her
verified answer, to attend the mandatory conference, and to submit her
position paper despite having received due notice thereof.

ISSUE:

A. Whether Atty. Donayre should be held administratively liable for

violating the rule against forum shopping.

HELD:

A. The Court held that Atty. Donayre is guilty of forum shopping.

1. SC: "The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits

involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgment."

2. Notwithstanding the finality of the dismissal of NLRC Case No. RAB

VII-09-2458-2009, Atty. Donayre deliberately filed another labor
case, docketed as NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 07-1396-10, based on the
same cause of action, involving the same parties, and with the same
prayer before the LA.

3. Atty. Donayre’s action clearly reveals a misplaced zealousness and

malicious intent to relitigate the case in the hope of gaining a
favorable judgment. It also demonstrates a clear abuse and misuse of
court processes to the detriment not only of the winning party, but
also of the administration of justice.

4. The conduct of Atty. Donayre is in violation of the rule against forum

shopping and the doctrine of res judicata in breach of Rule 10.03,
Canon 10, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) which provide:
 8

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the

court.
xxx xxx xxx

Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his

duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
xxx xxx xxx

Rule 12.02 — A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising

from the same cause.
xxx xxx xxx

Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede

the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

5. The Court ruled that Atty. Donayre’s blatant noncompliance with the
IBP’s directives clearly indicates a lack of respect for the Court and
the IBP's rules and procedures, which, in itself, is tantamount to
willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court, in
violation of Canon 1 of the CPR which states:

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

6. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Marian C. Donayre is SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.

xxx
 9

CARMELITA CANETE vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO PUTI, A.C. No. 10949,

14 August 2019, Second Division, Caguioa

Principle in sum:

“CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others.”

FACTS:

1. Carmelita Canete filed a complaint against Atty. Artemio Puti.

Complainant claimed that her husband was a victim in a criminal case
for kidnapping for ransom with double murder filed against Atty.
Puti's client. She further alleged that in numerous occasions, Atty. Puti
appeared in court while he was intoxicated and made discourteous and
inappropriate remarks against the public and private prosecutors as
well as the judge.

2. Canete claimed that Atty. Puti provoked her private counsel, Atty.
Tan by calling him “bakla” in open court during the hearing.

3. Based on the Transcript of Stenographic Notes, Atty. Puti made

unprofessional remarks against the two prosecutors and the judge. The
remarks read:

“Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo.”

“That is an abuse of discretion on your part, [Y]our Honor”

“I will withdraw. I will walk out.”

“I am going to think the Honorable Court is bias[ed].”

ISSUE:

A. Whether or not Atty. Puti should be held liable for failing to conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional
colleagues by: (a) appearing in the hearings while drunk; (b)
provoking and insulting the prosecutors; (c) disrespecting the court.
 10

HELD:

A. YES. Atty. Puti failed to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor toward his professional colleagues.

1. On the allegation that Atty. Puti appeared intoxicated in court on

numerous occasions, there is no evidence in record and it was not
sufficiently proven. Thus, Atty. Puti cannot be held liable on this
ground.

2. On the second allegation of provoking and insulting the prosecutors,

the Court held that Atty. Puti employed impertinent and discourteous
language towards the opposing counsels. To recall, Atty. Puti called
Atty. Tan "bakla" in a condescending manner. To be sure, the term
"bakla" (gay) itself is not derogatory. However, when "bakla" is used
in a pejorative and deprecating manner, then it becomes derogatory.
Such offensive language finds no place in the courtroom or in any
other place for that matter.

3. The accusation of Atty. Puti against the public prosecutor that they
were bribed overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor.
The statement reads: "Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro
bayad sa inyo." His statements violated the provisions under the CPR:

CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness,

and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.

4. On the allegation that Atty. Puti disrespected the Court by stating in

open court that the judge was abusing his discretion and implied that
the judge was biased, The Court held that such statements were
improper. While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the right to
criticize the acts of courts and judges, the same must be made
respectfully and through legitimate channels. In this case, Atty. Puti
violated the following provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to

the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.

Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or

menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
 11

Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not

supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

5. The Court held that Atty. Puti is guilty of using inappropriate

language against opposing counsels and the judge and such
transgression is not grave in character as to merit his suspension.

WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING

that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely.

xxx

ROSELYN S. PARKS vs. ATTY. JOAQUIN L. MISA, JR., A.C. No.

11639, 5 February 2020, Second Division, Delos Santos

Principle in sum:

""[t]hough a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should

always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
 12

profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no

place in the dignity of judicial forum."

FACTS:

1. Roselyn S. Parks, alleged in her complaint that Atty. Joaquin L. Misa,

acting as legal authority, allowed his client, Anthony Ting, to commit
a criminal offense of demolishing a portion of the concrete wall of the
house of her father, Rosendo T. Suniega (Rosendo) and the foregoing
act was without lawful order from the court. She further alleged that
Anthony Ting inflicted bodily harm against Rosendo in the presence
of Atty. Misa. By the reason of the same incident, Rosendo filed a
case for Malicious Mischief and Less Serious Physical Injuries against
Anthony Ting, Atty. Misa and several others.

2. In her complaint, Atty. Misa executed a counter-affidavit containing

defamatory and libelous statement against her, even if she was not a
party to the complaint filed by her father, Rosendo. The derogatory
statements read as follows:

“… I turned to her and said, "What do you think will happen if they
(U.S. IMMIGRATION) find out about your fix marriage (in Las
Vegas)"
xxx

“Since the complaint affidavit was probably prepared by ROSELYN,

a known DRUG ADDICT and a FRAUD x x x it thought not to be
given any credence whatsoever and forthwith dismissed”

ISSUE:

A. Did Atty. Misa violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by his

use of derogatory and defamatory language against Roselyn in his
counter-affidavit?

HELD:

A. The language contained in Atty. Misa's counter-affidavit, making

reference to the personal behavior and circumstances of Roselyn
run afoul to the precepts of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

1. In Gimeno v. Zaide, it was held that the prohibition on the use of

intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in a lawyer's
professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other
person, is based on the following canons and rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
 13

Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness

and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to

the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.

Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or

menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

2. Roselyn was not even a party to the subject criminal case under
investigation. The derogatory statements made in the counter-affidavit
about Roselyn were uncalled for and thus only show that the clear
intention of Atty. Misa was to humiliate or insult Roselyn.

3. SC: "[t]hough a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it

should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the
legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum."

4. Atty. Misa is hereby ADMONISHED to refrain from using language

that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper in his pleadings, and
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

xxx
EDUARDO L. ALCANTARA vs. ATTY. SAMUEL M. SALAS, A.C.
No. 3989, 10 December 2019, First Division, Reyes Jr.

Principle in sum:

“RULE 12.03 — A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.”

FACTS:

1. Complainant alleged that he hired the services of Atty. Samuel Salas

in filing a civil action for specific performance with damages on May
19, 1980. Atty. Salas appealed to the CA on April 26, 1990 after
losing in the trial court.
 14

2. The CA sent a notice to file brief twice and, in both instances, the
notices were returned unclaimed because the addressee has moved.

3. July 1992 – Alcantara received the news that his appeal was dismissed
due to non-filing of appellant’s brief despite notice. Atty. Salas
averred that it should have been the duty of the CA to send the notices
at his then current residential address as recorded in the two other
cases that were consolidated with a third case.

4. March 16, 1993 – Alcantara filed a complaint for unethical,

unprofessional, and corrupt practices against his counsel, respondent
Atty. Samuel M. Salas.

ISSUE:

A. Whether or not Atty. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to

file the appellant's brief in the CA.

HELD:

A. Atty. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to file the

appellant's brief in the CA.

1. The Court found that Atty. Salas violated Rule 12.03, Canons 17, 18,
and Rule 18.03 of the CPR.

RULE 12.03 — A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time

to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF

HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

RULE 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.

2. The transcript of stenographic notes reveals that Atty. Salas admitted

to not filing the appellant’s brief in the CA and not updating the
appellate court of his then current mailing address.

3. It is crystal clear that the root cause of non-filing of appellant's brief

was Atty. Salas' failure to inform the CA of the change in his mailing
address. Had he done so, he would have received the CA's notices
 15

requiring him to file the appellant's brief. Had he been diligent in his
duty, Alcantara's appeal would not have been dismissed.

4. The Court suspended Atty. Salas from practice of law for six (6)
months, effective upon the receipt of the decision. He is sternly
warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt more
severely.

xxx

ROMEO TELLES vs. ATTY. ROGELIO P. DANCEL, A.C. No. 5279, 8

September 2020, En Banc, Per Curiam

Principle in sum:

“Disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are unlike civil suits where the
complainants are the plaintiffs and the respondent attorneys are the
defendants. Rather, they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare, for the purpose of preserving the courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice law before them.”

FACTS:

1. Romeo Telles hired Atty. Dancel as legal counsel for an action for
Annulment of a Deed of Quitclaim. The case, through Atty. Dancel,
was elevated to the CA after losing in the trial court.

2. A total of 75 days was given to Atty. Dancel when he filed four

motions for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Still, he failed
to file the required appellant’s brief. Thus, the CA dismissed Telles’
appeal.

3. Telles was not also informed by Atty. Dancel of the dismissal of the
case and that the latter did not also offer any explanation for his
failure to file the appellant’s brief. Telles also discovered that the trial
court denied his Formal Offer of Evidence for having been filed out of
time by Atty. Dancel.
 16

4. A complaint for disbarment was filed by Telles against respondent

Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel for gross negligence and inefficiency as a
lawyer in handling the Telles’ case. Atty. Dancel was required by the
Court to file his Comment to Telles’ complaint on August 2, 2000. He
failed to comply.

5. The Court issued two (2) show cause orders to Atty. Dancel, asking
him why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for failure to file
the required comment. These orders were dated August 21, 2000 and
August 21, 2002, respectively. As to the first order dated on August
21, 2000, Atty. Dancel filed several Motions for Extensions of Time
to File Answer. The Court granted these motions.

6. On July 14, 2003, the Court resolved to impose on Atty. Dancel a fine
of P1,000,00 or to suffer imprisonment of 10 days in case he fails to
pay, and ordered him to file the required comment, within 10 days
from notice. Still, Atty. Dancel did not comply.

7. On April 20, 2009, the Court directed the National Bureau of

Investigation to arrest and detain him, and directed Atty. Dancel to
pay the fine of P3,000.00 and file the required comment. The Court
noted that Atty. Dancel paid the fine.

8. On November, 19, 2014, Atty. Dancel was required to comply with

the Resolution dated August 2, 2000 under pain of a more severe
sanction, within 10 days from notice. Finally, Atty. Dancel filed his
one-page comment.

9. Atty. Dancel also submitted to the court a copy of Telles’ Certificate

of Death showing that the latter died on August 10, 2000, shortly after
filing the complaint. Atty. Dancel claims that Telles failed to
substantiate the complaint against him.

ISSUE:

A. Whether or not Atty. Dancel was negligent and inefficient as a lawyer

in handling Telles’ Case and should be disbarred.

HELD:

A. The Court disbarred Atty. Dancel because he was negligent and

inefficient in handling Telles’ Case.

1. The duties transgressed by Atty. Dancel fall under the duties to his
client and to the Court. Atty. Dancel has the propensity for filing
motions for extension of time to file pleadings and failing to file the
same.
 17

2. Atty. Dancel, in failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his

client, had clearly fallen short of his duties as counsel as set forth in
Canon 12 and in Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his

duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12.03 — "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time
to file pleadings memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
so."

3. Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the CPR were also violated by Atty.
Dancel when he failed to inform Telles of the dismissal of their appeal
before the CA.

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.

Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.

4. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and any
willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt, but to disciplinary sanctions as well.

5. The Court gave no less than eight orders, warnings, and even imposed
fines on Atty. Dancel to file his Comment. Instead of complying,
however, Atty. Dancel repeatedly ignored the Court’s directives. It
was only after 15 years that Atty. Dancel filed a one-page Comment,
claiming to be afflicted with diabetes, nary a proof to support such
claim.

6. The fact that Telles died soon after filing the present complaint would
not absolve Atty. Dancel from any liability. Disciplinary proceedings
against attorneys are unlike civil suits where the complainants are the
plaintiffs and the respondent attorneys are the defendants. Rather, they
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, for the
purpose of preserving the courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice law before them.

7. Considering the gravity of Atty. Dancel’s recalcitrant attitude towards

the Court and his utter indifference towards the cause of his client, the
Court finds the penalty of disbarment to be appropriate and his name
was ordered to be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
 18

xxx

ENRICO R. VELASCO vs. ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, A.C. No.

12883, 2 March 2021, En Banc, Inting

Principle in sum:

“CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause

and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives
the appearance of influencing the court.”

FACTS:

1. Complainant is the petitioner in Civil Case No. 10536 for the

declaration of nullity of his marriage with Nina Ricci Narvaez
Laudato (Laudato) pending before Branch 3, Regional Trial Court,
Balanga City, Bataan. Atty. Causing is the counsel of Laudato in the
nullity case.

2. Through Facebook, Atty. Causing sent a direct message to

complainant’s son, Jomel A. Velasco, stating as follows: "[p]akitignan
mo ang iyong ama, iho at huwag mo syang gayahin ha." The message
was accompanied by a link to a post dated March 19, 2016 (subject
post) published by Atty. Causing on Facebook with the caption "Wise
Polygamous Husband?", to wit:

"WISE POLYGAMOUS HUSBAND?”

"After marrying a girl as his second wife while his first wife was still
alive, when there was no doubt it was bigamous and a crime of
bigamy, this man still has the gall to file a petition to declare his
second marriage null and void.”

"In his petition, he asked the RTC of Balanga to declare his marriage
void because of lack of marriage license and not because of marriage
being bigamous.”

"If you want to read his petition, a copy is attached here. His
intention in filing the petition was to prevent the second wife's
criminal case of bigamy from succeeding by reason of prejudicial
question."

3. Photographs of the complete copy of the complainant’s petition in the

nullity case were also attached by Atty. Causing to the subject post on
Facebook. Atty. Causing shared the subject post to a public group.
 19

The subject post was also shared by the other persons onto their
respective Facebook accounts. Resultantly, the subject post generated
negative reactions and comments against complainant.

4. In his Verified Answer, he claimed that he was only performing his

duties as the "spokesman-lawyer" of his client and that as a
“journalist-blogger," he merely exercised his constitutional right to
press freedom when he published the subject post in Facebook.

ISSUE:

A. Whether Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable for

publishing the subject post and photographs of complainant's petition
in the nullity case in his Facebook accounts.

HELD:

A. Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable for

publishing the subject post and photographs of complainant's
petition in the nullity case in his Facebook accounts.

1. The defense of Atty. Causing that he is invoking his rights to freedom

of expression and of the press and argues that he was merely acting as
a "spokesman-lawyer" and a "journalist-blogger" when he published
the subject post is untenable.

2. A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one

time and a mere citizen at another. Regardless of whether a lawyer is
representing his client in court, acting as a supposed spokesperson
outside of it, or is merely practicing his right to press freedom as a
"journalist-blogger," his duties to the society and his ethical
obligations as a member of the bar remain unchanged. In addition, it is
settled that the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, like
all constitutional freedoms, are not absolute.

3. In particular, the CPR provides:

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
xxx xxx xxx

Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

xxx xxx xxx

CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause

 20

and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives

the appearance of influencing the court.

Rule 13.02 — A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.

xxx xxx xxx

CANON 19 — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.

Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

4. Atty. Causing had clearly violated Section 12 of Republic Act No.

8369, or the Family Courts Act of 1997, which prohibits the
publication or disclosure, in any manner, of the records of Family
Court cases. This is, in itself, a breach of his duties under Canon 1 as
well as Canon 13 and Rule 13.02 of the CPR as the subject post not
only disclosed confidential information regarding the nullity case, but
also included his own, strongly-worded opinion regarding
complainant's character and the circumstances surrounding the case.

5. Atty. Causing likewise violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he used
the words "polygamous," "criminal," "dishonest," "arrogance,"
"disgusting," and "cheater" in the subject post and in his pleadings in
direct reference to complainant.

6. In this case, it appears that Atty. Causing's post in Facebook was so

designed to elicit, at the very least, a negative public opinion against
complainant. Such act, however, is proscribed under Rule 19.01 of the
CPR which, among others, mandates lawyers to "employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client."

7. The Court deems it proper to suspend Atty. Causing from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
xxx
 21

JUSTICE FERNANDA LAMPAS-PERALTA, JUSTICE STEPHEN C.

CRUZ, and JUSTICE RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO vs. ATTY.
MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, A.C. No. 12415, 5 March 2019, En
Banc, Per Curiam

Principle in sum:

“RULE 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.”

FACTS:
 22

1. It came to the knowledge of complainants that a certain Maria Rossan

De Jesus (De Jesus) went to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court
of the CA Fifth Division to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of a
Decision purportedly written by complainants in a criminal case
entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Tirso Fajardo y Delos Trino, "
and docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 08005.

2. In the said decision, complainants allegedly ordered the acquittal of

Tirso Fajardo (Fajardo), cousin of De Jesus, for the crime of violation
of Sections 5 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. The said
decision was given to De Jesus by respondent, who was their counsel,
to serve as proof that Fajardo had been acquitted. Respondent is a law
practitioner, who was admitted to the bar on May 4, 2004 with Roll
No. 49050. However, respondent informed De Jesus that the
promulgation of the said decision would supposedly depend on the
payment of a large sum of money to respondent.

3. Complainants learned through a newspaper item and television news

program that on March 8, 2016, an entrapment operation was
conducted by the members of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) against respondent, where she was caught red-handed receiving
marked money from Carlos Aquino (Aquino), a friend of Fajardo, for
the issuance of the aforementioned fake decision.

4. Thus, complainants filed the present administrative complaint alleging

that respondent should be disbarred due to the following reasons: for
representing herself as a lawyer who can influence Justices of the
Court of Appeals to secure the acquittal of an accused; for defrauding
the relatives of accused Fajardo to amass a large amount of money in
the total amount of P1,000,000.00; for utter show of disrespect to
complainants, the Court, and the Judiciary as a whole; and for
committing the crimes of estafa and falsification.

ISSUES:

A. Whether or not respondent should be disbarred as a lawyer for

committing acts that were in violation of her sworn duties as a lawyer
and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for unreasonably
involving the Justices in the incident to their damage and prejudice.

B. Whether or not respondent committed grave misconduct.

HELD:

A. Atty. Ramon should be disbarred as a lawyer.

1. Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with

honesty and integrity in all their dealings. Members of the bar took
 23

their oath to conduct themselves according to the best of their

knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to their clients and to delay no man for money or malice. These
mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients
considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.

2. Respondent also defrauded her clients by drafting a fake, spurious,

and sham decision regarding the purported acquittal of Fajardo. She
placed the names of complainants in the fake decision even though the
criminal case of Fajardo was raffled in a different division and
assigned to a different Associate Justice. Glaringly, she discredited
and disrespected members of the judiciary by wrongfully involving
complainants' names in her fraudulent scheme. She also maliciously
represented to her clients that she can influence Associate Justices of
the CA to ensure the acquittal of an accused.

3. Further, respondent exacted exorbitant fees from her clients, in the

amount of P1,000,000.00 more or less, as evidenced by receipts she
signed. In her ultimate desire to extort more money from Fajardo's
relatives, she presented the fake decision of acquittal and asserted that
the promulgation of the said decision would allegedly depend on the
payment of a large sum of money to respondent.

4. Verily, the acts exhibited by respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath.

Her acts are also contrary to Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01,
1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03, to wit:

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of

the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and

dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
integrated bar.

RULE 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely

reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the

court.
 24

RULE 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.

RULE 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent

the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law
a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

RULE 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

5. In fine, respondent's acts should not just be deemed as unacceptable

practices that are both disgraceful and dishonorable; these reveal a
moral flaw that makes her unfit to practice law.

B. Atty. Ramon committed grave misconduct.

1. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements

of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard
established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.

2. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of

an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his
station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another
person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

3. Doubtless, respondent had a clear intent to violate the law when she
fraudulently drafted a fake decision of the CA, falsely including
therein the names of complainants, and presenting it to her clients for
monetary consideration. These acts show respondent's wanton
disregard of the law and a patent propensity to trample upon the
canons of the Code.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is GUILTY of violating the

Lawyer's Oath, Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01,10.02,
and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Grave
Misconduct. For reasons above stated, she is DISBARRED from the practice
of law and her name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately, without prejudice to the civil or criminal cases pending and/or
to be filed against her.

xxx
 25

PHILIPPINE ISLAND KIDS INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION,

INC. (PIKIFI) vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO JOSE C. PALLUGNA, A.C.
No. 11653, 23 November 2021, En Banc, Per Curiam

Principle in sum:

“While he is given the liberty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal,
this obligation, however, is not without reasonable limitations. His
responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client must not be
pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice.”

FACTS:

1. PIKIFI is a non-governmental organization providing both

developmental and humanitarian aid to street children suffering from
all forms of human abuse. PIKIFI helped one of the victims, then 10-
year-old AAA, in filing a complaint against a certain American
national named Michael John Collins (Collins) and his alleged
accomplice, Sheena "Choy Choy" Maglinte (Maglinte).

2. The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) filed an Information for

Rape against Collins before the RTC docketed as Family Court Case
No. 2012-511.

3. On August 4, 2012, the rescued children including AAA ran away

from the PIKIFI shelter and proceeded to Gaston Park where Collins’
wife, a certain Pretty Mae, got hold of them. The children were
brought to Cagayan De Oro City where Collins was staying and they
were not allowed to leave. Through sheer luck, they escaped and
returned to the PIKIFI premises the next day.

4. On November 30, 2012, Maglinte and two unidentified women took

AAA by force and convinced her to go to the residence of a certain
"attorney." Fortunately, a PIKIFI social worker rescued AAA in front
of Flamenco Cafe & Bar, owned by Atty. Pallugna. Atty. Pallugna
was the counsel of Collins and Maglinte.

5. Sometime in February 2016, Maglinte again brought AAA to

Flamenco Cafe & Bar to meet Atty. Pallugna. Thereat, Atty. Pallugna
told AAA, being the complainant in the rape case against Collins, not
to appear in the April 2, 2016 court hearing in exchange for the
 26

amount of P600.00 plus P250.00 each time she would not appear in
court. AAA, who was then 15 years old, accepted the P600.00 and
agreed not to attend the court hearings of the rape case.

6. May 17, 2016, PIKIFI received the subpoena for the next hearing
scheduled on May 31, 2016. PIKIFI got in touch with AAA, but they
could no longer locate her.

7. On the other hand, Maglinte was able to contact AAA and her
boyfriend, BBB, a former PIKIFI beneficiary. Maglinte told AAA and
BBB that Atty. Pallugna wanted to see them at the Flamenco Cafe &
Bar. Thereat, Atty. Pallugna asked BBB if he was interested to work
for him as a security guard in Maramag, Bukidnon with a weekly
salary of P2,500.00 on the condition that he would bring along AAA
and that their whereabouts should remain undisclosed until AAA's
case is dismissed. Atty. Pallugna also told AAA not to disclose to
anyone her whereabouts, with a promise to give her P30,000.00 as
soon as the case would be dismissed. Both BBB and AAA accepted
the offer.

8. Consequently, AAA was unable to attend the hearings. Atty. Pallugna

still protested AAA's non-appearance in court and insisted that her
continued absence in the hearings warranted the dismissal of the case.
The RTC then gave PIKIFI an ultimatum that the non-appearance of
AAA on the next scheduled hearing will cause the dismissal of the
case against Collins.

9. September 20, 2016 – AAA and BBB were rescued by the police
officers in Maramag Bukidnon.

10. Atty. Pallugna met CCC, AAA’s sister. He offered CCC P30,000.00
to find AAA and hide the latter in Dumaguete.

11. The foregoing antecedents prompted PIKIFI to file the instant

complaint against Atty. Pallugna. In addition, they filed complaints
for Obstruction of Justice and Serious Illegal Detention against Atty.
Pallugna before the DOJ. However, the Serious Illegal Detention case
was dismissed.

ISSUE:

A. Whether or not Atty. Pallugna is liable for lawyering beyond the

bounds of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.
HELD:

A. Atty. Pallugna is liable for lawyering beyond the bounds of the

Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.
 27

1. The fact that the defense counsel secretly met with the child victim in
his bar, in the absence of the child victim's lawyer, and without the
knowledge of the child victim's parents, is utterly unethical and highly
deplorable.

2. Atty. Pallugna’s acts are an outright manipulation and exploitation of

the weak and vulnerable. His conduct is so shameful that it not only
delayed AAA’s quest for justice but also discredited the entire legal
profession.

3. Worse, Atty. Pallugna moved, despite his own machinations, for the
dismissal of the rape case on the ground of violation of Collin's right
to speedy trial because of AAA's continued absence during the
hearings. In doing so, Atty. Pallugna made a mockery of the court and
misused the rules of procedure in order to defeat the administration of
justice. His conducts are in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Rule
10.03, Canon 12, Rule 12.07, Canon 15, Rule 15.07, Canon 19, and
Rule 19.01 of the CPR which reads, respectively:

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the

court.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.

Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his

duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12.07 — A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness

nor needlessly inconvenience him.

CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in

all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
Rule 15.07 — A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with
the laws and the principles of fairness.

CANON 19 — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.

Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
 28

4. While he is given the liberty to defend his client's cause with utmost
zeal, this obligation, however, is not without reasonable limitations.
His responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client
must not be pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of
justice.

5. This is not the only instance when Atty. Pallugna used the scheme to
suppress the truth and defeat the ends of justice. In another criminal
case filed against Collins, the child victim therein asserted that she
was unable to attend the court hearings in her case because Atty.
Pallugna sent her to Davao City to avoid the case.

6. Considering Atty. Pallugna's clear violations of his Lawyer's Oath and

the Canons of the CPR through his dishonest, deceitful and fraudulent
conduct and his previous suspension from the practice of law where
he was warned by the Court that the commission of a similar future
transgression shall be dealt with more severely, the Court disbarred
Atty. Pallugna from the practice of law and his name is ordered
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

xxx