MA. VIDIA B.

LARGO

Legal Profession

Case Digest

1. MICHELLE YAP VS. ATTY GRACE C. BURI

A.C. NO. 11156

MARCH 19, 2018

Facts:

The instant case stemmed from the complaint of Michelle Yap against
respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri for refusing to pay her monetary obligation and for
filing a criminal case of Estafa against her based on false accusations. Complainant
Michelle Yap was the vendor in a contract of sale of a condominium unit, while Atty.
Grace C. Buri, Yap's close friend and her daughter's godmother, was the vendee.
Buri made an offer to purchase the property but asked for the reduction of the price
from P1,500,000.00 to P1,200,000.00. After consulting with her husband, Yap
agreed. Of the total amount of purchase price of P1,200,000.00, P200,000.00
remains unpaid; Buri insisted that she would just pay the balance on installment
starting in but without specifying the amount to be paid on each installment. Because
she trusted the respondent, Yap gave Buri the full and immediate possession of the
condominium unit upon completion of the P1,000,000.00 despite the outstanding
balance and even without the necessary Deed of Absolute Sale. However, when Yap
finally asked for the balance in January 2011, Buri said she would pay it on a
monthly installment of P5,000.00 until fully paid. When Yap disagreed, Buri said she
would just cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also started threatening her through text
messages, and then later on filed a case for estafa against her.Buri alleged in the
criminal case that when she found out that the sale of the condominium unit was
made without the consent of Yap's husband, Yap cancelled the sale and promised to
return the amount of P1,000,000.00 initially paid. Despite several demands,
however, she failed and refused to return the money. Thus, Buri was constrained to
file a case for estafa against Yap. Said case was later dismissed. Yap then filed an
administrative complaint against Buri for the alleged false accusations against her.
On July 2, 2014, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines recommended Buri's suspension in view of all the foregoing, undersigned
Commissioner recommends to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) months upon the respondent, Atty. Grace C. Buri, and for
her to pay the complainant the amount of PhP200,000.00 upon execution by
complainant and spouse of the Deed of Absolute Sale of the condominium unit
subject of the sale between the parties. On January 31, 2015, the IBP Board of
Governors issued Resolution which adopted the foregoing recommendation but with
modification, thus with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution, finding Respondent's violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Hence, Atty. Grace C. Buri is hereby suspended from the practice of
law for one year. The order to pay P200,000.00 is deleted without prejudice to the
filing of proper action by Complainant in Court. Here, instead of paying Yap the
remaining balance of the purchase price of the condominium unit, Buri opted to
simply threaten her and file a criminal case against her. Obviously, this strategy was
to intimidate Yap and prevent her from collecting the remaining P200,000.00. When
given a chance to defend herself, Buri chose to stay silent and even refused to file
an answer, attend the hearing, or to submit her position paper, despite due notice.

Issues:

Whether or Not There is a Violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility

Ruling:

The Court finds no sufficient reason to overturn the findings and

recommendation of the IBP that Buri must be disciplined accordingly. Buri's
persistent refusal to pay her obligation despite frequent demands clearly reflects her
lack of integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her knowledge of the
law and clearly resorted to threats and intimidation in order to get away with what
she wanted, constituting a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of
public confidence in the legal profession. Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's
Oath that enjoins her to support the Constitution and obey the laws. She forgot that
she must not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit nor give aid nor consent to the same. She also took for granted the express
commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility , specifically Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR
provide:CANON 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 -a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. while Canon 7 and rule
7.03 of the cpr state, 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. The foregoing canons require of Buri,
as a lawyer, an enduring high sense of responsibility and good fidelity in all her
dealings and emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of her,
not only in the practice of the legal profession, but in her personal dealings as well. A
lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond
reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the courts and keepers of the
public's faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and
are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and
honor. Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to impresses upon them the duty of
exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships
with others. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their
professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to
continue to be officers of the court. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the
practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial
duties, not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts,
and to the public, and takes part in the administration of justice, one of the most
important functions of the State, as an officer of the court. Accordingly, lawyers are
bound to maintain, not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality,
honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.Time and again, the Court has stressed the
settled principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the
bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. The Court sustains the modified
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court has held that the
deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer
may be sanctioned with one year-suspension from the practice of law. The Court
likewise upholds the deletion of the payment of the P200,000.00 since the same is
not intrinsically linked to Buri's professional engagement. Disciplinary proceedings
should only revolve around the determination of the respondent lawyer's
administrative and not his civil liability. Thus, when the claimed liabilities are purely
civil in nature, as when the claim involves money owed by the lawyer to his client in
view of a separate and distinct transaction and not by virtue of a lawyer-client
relationship, the same should be threshed out in a separate civil action. The Court
suspends Atty. Grace C. Buri from the practice of law for a period of one year and
warns her that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
2. ARNOLD PACAO

VS.

ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS

A.C. NO. 11246

JUNE 14, 2016

Facts:

Sometime in March 2008, complainant's wife Mariadel Pacao, former vault

custodian of BHF Pawnshop branch in Mandaluyong City, was charged with qualified
theft by BHF. Thereafter, the case was filed... before the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City. To buy peace, the complainant initiated negotiation with BHF,
through Atty. Limos, for a possible settlement. A meeting was then arranged
between the complainant and Atty. Limos, where the latter represented that she was
duly authorized by BHF. Negotiations. Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is demanding
the sum of P530,000.00 to be paid in full or by installments. Further negotiation led
to an agreement whereby the complainant would pay an initial amount of
P200,000.00 to be entrusted to Atty. Limos, who will then deliver to the...
complainant a signed affidavit of desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint
motion to approve compromise agreement for filing with the court. On October 29,
2009, the complainant gave the initial amount of P200,000.00 to Atty. Limos, who in
turn, signed an Acknowledgment Receipt recognizing her undertakings as counsel of
BHF. However, Atty. Limos failed to meet the terms of their agreement. Thereafter,
in June 2010, the complainant met BHF's representative, Camille Bonifacio, who
informed him that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and was not authorized
to negotiate any settlement nor receive any money in behalf of BHF. This prompted
the complainant to send a demand letter to Atty. Limos to return the P200,000.00
initial settlement payment, but the latter failed and refused to do so. The complainant
then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Limos before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP-CBD required Atty. Limos to file
an answer but she did not file any responsive pleading. On May 5, 2014, the
Investigating Commissioner... found enough evidence on record to prove that Atty.
Limos committed fraud and practiced deceit on the complainant to the latter's...
prejudice by concealing or omitting to disclose the material fact that she no longer
had the authority to negotiate and conclude a settlement for and on behalf of BHF,
nor was authorized to receive the P200,000.00 from the complainant. On March 8,
2016, the IBP transmitted the notice of the resolution and the case records to the
Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Once again, for
the third time, Atty. Limos is facing an administrative case before this Court for
receiving the amount of P200,000.00 from the complainant purportedly for a possible
amicable settlement with her client BHF. The practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.

Issues:

Whether or not the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis

to disbar Atty. Limos from the practice of law?

Ruling:

To begin with, the Court notes that this is not the first time that Atty. Limos is
facing an administrative case, for she had already been twice suspended from the
practice of law, by this Court, for three months each in Villaflores v. Atty. Limos and
Wilkie v. Atty. Limos. Once again, for the third time, Atty. Limos is facing an
administrative case before this Court for receiving the amount of P200,000.00 from
the complainant purportedly for a possible amicable settlement with her client BHF.
Her blunder is compounded by the fact that she did not turn over the money to BHF,
nor did she return the same to the complainant, despite due demand. Furthermore,
she even tried to get the next installment knowing fully well that she was not
authorized to enter into settlement negotiations with the complainant as her
engagement as counsel of BHF had already ceased. The fact that this is Atty. Limos'
third transgression exacerbates her offense. It is not too farfetched for this Court to
conclude that from the very beginning, Atty. Limos had planned to employ deceit on
the complainant to get hold of a sum of money. Such a conduct is unbecoming and
does not speak well of a member of the Bar. The present case comes clearly under
the grounds given in Section 27,Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court,
however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party
has become a repeat offender. Considering the serious nature of the instant offense
and in light of Atty. Limos' prior misconduct which grossly degrades the legal
profession, the imposition of the ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted. Indeed,
Atty. Limos has disgraced the legal profession. The facts and evidence obtaining in
this case definitely establish her failure to live up to her duties as a lawyer in
accordance with the strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby making her unworthy
to continue as a member of the bar. respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos, having violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing grave misconduct and willful
insubordination, is disbarred.
3. HEIRS OF JUUAN DE DIOES E. CARLOS

VS.

ATTY. JAIME S. LINSANGAN

A.C. NO. 11494

JULY 24, 2017

Facts:

Complainants are children of the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos who presently
seek to disbar respondent Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan Complainants alleged that Atty.
Linsangan forced them to sign pleadings and documents, sold the parcel of land in
Alabang, Muntinlupa City in cahoots with complainants' estranged mother, and
evaded payment of income taxes when he divided his share in the subject property
as his supposed attorney's fees to his wife and children, all in violation of his oath as
lawyer. For purposes of recovering the subject property from Teofilo and Teofilo's
supposed wife, Felicidad, and from Pedro, Juan engaged the services of Atty.
Linsangan. It appears that Atty. Linsangan, for Juan, filed the following cases: a case
against Felicidad which was settled with the latter acknowledging Juan's one-half
interest and ownership over the property; a case against Pedro which was concluded
on September 12, 1997; and another case against Felicidad, albeit filed by another
lawyer who acted under the direct control and supervision of Atty. Linsangan. In this
case against Felicidad, it appears that the other half of the property was adjudicated
to Juan, as Teofilo's sole heir. Said adjudication was appealed to the CA. During the
pendency of the above cases, or on September 22, 1997, Atty. Linsangan and Juan
executed a Contract for Professional Services enumerating the above cases being
handled by Atty. Linsangan for Juan. However, it was not only Juan who went after
the property, but also Bernard Rillo and Alicia Carlos, a sister-in-law. This remaining
10,000 square meter portion was eventually divided in the case filed by Juan against
Felicidad which Atty. Linsangan admits to have filed albeit through another lawyer
who acted under his control and supervision, through a Compromise Agreement
wherein 7,500 square meters of the subject property was given to the heirs of Juan
while the remaining 2,500 square meters thereof was given to Felicidad. A
Supplemental Compromise Agreement dated December 16, 2009 was submitted by
the heirs of Juan and Atty. Linsangan, dividing among them the 7,500 square meter-
portion of the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to the heirs of Juan and
3,750 square meters to Atty. Linsangan pursuant to the Contract for Professional
Services. Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with a certain Helen S.
Perez covering the entire 12,331 square meters of the subject property for a
purchase price of One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos. Atty. Linsangan sold the entire
property. Helen issued several checks in varying amounts either made payable to
Cash or to Jaime S. Linsangan or Lorna O. Linsangan complainants allegedly
requested from Atty. Linsangan for their shares in the proceeds and for the copies of
the Special Power of Attorney as well as the case records, but that Atty. Linsangan
refused. Complainants wrote a letter to Atty. Linsangan revoking the Special Power
of Attorney which they executed in the latter's favor. Complainants, however,
recognized Atty. Lisangan's services for which they proposed that the latter be paid
on the basis of quantum meruit instead of fifty percent (50%) of the subject property.
Complainants filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Linsangan
accusing the latter of forcing them to sign pleadings filed in court, copies of which
were not furnished them; of selling the subject property in cahoots with their mother.
Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental Compromise Agreement was never
questioned by the complainants until now and that they had never requested for a
copy thereof from him.

Issues:

The threshold issue to be resolved is whether respondent is guilty of violating

his lawyer's oath.

Ruling:

After a careful review of the record of the case, the Court finds that
respondent committed acts in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby warranting
the Court's exercise of its disciplinary power. We begin by emphasizing that the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law
for the conferment of such privilege. Whether or not a lawyer is still entitled to
practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on
conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and
responsibilities of an attorney. The avowed purpose of suspending or disbarring an
attorney is not to punish the lawyer, but to remove from the profession a person
whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public
and those charged with the administration of justice. The lawyer's oath is a source of
obligations and its violation is a ground for suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action. The record shows and Atty. Linsangan does not deny, that while
the cases involving the subject property were still pending resolution and final
determination, Atty. Linsangan entered into a Contract for Professional Services with
Juan wherein his attorney's fees shall be that equivalent to 50% of the value of the
property, or a portion thereof, that may be recovered. It is likewise not denied by
Atty. Linsangan that he apportioned upon himself, and to his wife and children, half
of the property awarded to complainants as heirs of Juan, through a Supplemental
Compromise Agreement. Similarly, such Supplemental Compromise Agreement was
entered into by Atty. Linsangan and the heirs of Juan concurrently with the pendency
of several cases before the CA and this Court involving the very same property.
What is more, Atty. Linsangan, probably anticipating that he may be charged of
having undue interest over his client's property in litigation, caused another lawyer to
appear but all the while making it absolutely clear to Juan that the latter's
appearance was nevertheless under Atty. Linsangan's direct control and
supervision." Plainly, these acts are in direct contravention of Article 1491 of the Civil
Code which forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property
that has been the subject of litigation in which they have taken part by virtue of their
profession. Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan liable for violations of his lawyer's oath, Article
1491 of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
4. PAULINO LIM

VS.

ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA

A.C. NO. 12156

20 June 2018

FACTS:

On 09 March 2015, an administrative complaint was filed by Paulino Lim against

respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera , praying that the latter be meted disciplinary sanctions
for defrauding the former by issuing a worthless check as guarantee for the payment of
respondent's loan. Sometime in June 2014, complainant met respondent in the hallway of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City while accompanying his cousin who was then
inquiring about the status of a case. The two became acquainted after striking a
conversation with each other. In July 2014, respondent borrowed from complainant the
amount of P75,000.00, which the former needed immediately. Since respondent will issue a
guarantee check to ensure payment of the loan, complainant did not think twice in lending
money to respondent and issuing in his favor BDO Check No. 03565553 dated July 3, 2014
for P75,000.00. Subsequently, respondent made several other loans in the amounts of
Pl50,000.00, Pl0,000.00, and another Pl0,000.0, for which he no longer issued any
guarantee checks. Complainant claimed to have been taken by respondent's sweet talk and
promises of payment considering the millions he expects to receive as contingent fee in one
(1) of his cases. However, when complainant deposited Union Bank Check No. 0003405780,
it was dishonored for the reason "Account Closed." Thereafter, respondent would not take or
return complainant's calls nor respond to the latter's text messages. He completely avoided
complainant. On 15 October 2014, the complainant’s lawyer wrote a demand letter for the
payment of respondent's indebtedness in the aggregate amount of P245,000.00, but to no
avail. Thus, complainant was constrained to file an administrative case before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. In an Order dated April 17, 2015, the IBP directed respondent to
submit his answer to the complaint within a period of fifteen days from receipt of said Order,
failing which the case shall be heard ex parte. However, respondent filed no answer. On 13
November 2015, a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing was scheduled and was sent to
respondent. However, respondent did not appear. In a Report and Recommendation dated
November 14, 2016, the IBP Investigating Commissioner (IC) found respondent
administratively liable, and accordingly, recommended that he be meted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and be ordered to return to complainant
the amount of P75,000.00 with legal interest reckoned from July 19, 2014. The other loans
alleged by complainant were not duly proven. The IBP IC declared that respondent's act of
issuing a worthless check was a violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct."

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the

issuance of a worthless check in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. The Court finds the respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as
the Lawyer's Oath, and is suspended from the practice of law for one year. The
Court concurs with the findings and adopts the recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors, except for the return to complainant of the amount of P75,000.00 with
legal interest. The Court has imposed the penalty of suspension or disbarment for
any gross misconduct that a lawyer may have committed, whether it is in his
professional or in his private capacity. Good character is an essential qualification for
the admission to and continued practice of law. Thus, any wrongdoing, whether
professional or non-professional, indicating unfitness for the profession justifies
disciplinary action. In the case at bar, It is undisputed that respondent had obtained a
loan from complainant for which he issued a post-dated check that was eventually
dishonored and had failed to settle his obligation despite repeated demands. It has
been consistently held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance
of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples' faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to
the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and
norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Thus, the IBP IC correctly ruled that respondent's act of issuing a
worthless check was a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which explicitly
states:CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In Enriquez v. De Vera,
the Court categorically pronounced that a lawyer's act of issuing a worthless check,
punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutes serious misconduct
penalized by suspension from the practice of law for one year, for which no
conviction of the criminal charge is even necessary. Being a lawyer, respondent was
well aware of, or was nonetheless presumed to know, the objectives and coverage of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Yet, he knowingly violated the law and thereby "exhibited
his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and
public order. In addition, respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him
and his failure to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference/hearing despite
notice are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and
illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138,
Rules of Court. In the cases of Lao v. Medel, Rangwani v. Dino, and Enriquez v. De
Vera, the Court imposed the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law
for deliberate failure to pay just debts and for the issuance of worthless checks.
Indisputably, respondent has fallen short of the exacting standards expected of him
as a vanguard of the legal profession. His transgressions showed him to be unfit for
the office and unworthy of the privileges, which his license and the law confer to him,
for which he must suffer the consequence.
5. TERESITA P. FAJARDO

VS.

ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ

A.C. NO. 9018

APRIL 20, 2016

Facts:

Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of

San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez to
defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental
Health. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did
not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any
pleadings. Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the
Office of the Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee.
Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends
and acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases
against Teresita dismissed. However, just two weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez
talked, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision
recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal
from service, respectively. Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least
a portion of the amount she gave. Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to
Teresita; however, he failed to fulfill this promise. Teresita sent a demand letter to
Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed.

Issues:

First, whether respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, as a lawyer working in the

Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of
Health, is authorized to engage in the private practice of law;

Second, whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is

reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit.
Ruling:

We find that respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.

Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. In the context of this
case, his surreptitious actuations reveal illicit intent. Not only did he do unauthorized
practice, his acts also show badges of offering to peddle influence in the Office of the
Ombudsman. In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of
the National Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under
Department of Health Administrative Order. However, by assisting and representing
complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general,
respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest. Respondent's practice of
profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his
practice will not be in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine
government as a whole There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a
public officer, an employee of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of
government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is
going against the same employer he swore to serve. Likewise, we find that
respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it appear to complainant that
he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who could help them get a
favorable decision in complainant's case. Thus, respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01, and 1.02 prohibit lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent's act of
ensuring that the case will be dismissed because of his personal relationships with
officers or employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and dishonest.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to always
"uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. In relation, Canon 13
mandates that lawyers shall rely upon the merits of his [or her] cause and refrain
from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing
the court. A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a
favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and as
shown by the records, we rule that there is... enough proof to hold respondent guilty
of influence peddling. Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of violating the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the
Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended from
the practice of law for one year with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is ordered to return the amount
of P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.
6. ACHERNAR B. TABUZO

VS.

ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M. GOMOS

A.C. NO. 12005

JULY 23, 2018

Facts:

Before the Court is a Verified Complaint[1] filed by Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo

against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos who was then a Commissioner of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for allegedly committing the following acts: 2.1
Violation of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
and Republic Act 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees; 2.2 Violation of Canon 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions of the Commission on Bar Discipline;
2.3 Nonfeasance in deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action for serious
violations of duties owed to the Courts and the Legal Profession committed by a
lawyer, despite repeated notice, and contrary to the mandate of his office and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; 2.4 Gross Ignorance of the Law; 2.5 All the
foregoing were aggravated by: a. pattern of misconduct; B. multiple offenses; c.
substantial experience in the practice of law and d. betrayal of the trust of his office
as Commissioner of the Honorable Commission on Bar Discipline. On August 15,
2014, the respondent issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
complainant be reprimanded for the impropriety of talking to Sillo, without her
counsel, prior to the calling of their case for mediation conference, and for the
abusive, offensive or improper language used in the pleadings she filed in the said
case. Complainant alleged that respondent violated the Constitution, the Rules of
Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules Court
and Republic Act No. 6713 when he failed to act on her pleadings with dispatch and
for issuing his report and recommendation on August 15, 2014 or 174 days from the
submission of the last pleading. Complainant averred that respondent was very cruel
and heartless to an inexperienced lawyer when he mutilated statements made in her
pleadings in CBD Case No. 12-3457; and that he maliciously cropped and pasted
portions of complainant's statement in her position paper to give the wrong
impression before the IBP-Board of Governors that the introductory heading was an
act of name calling against respondent, thereby violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of
Canon 1 and Rules 3.01,3.02, and 3.04 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
She alleged that as early as December 2013, respondent was aware that Atty. Alan
R. Bulawan committed forum shopping and other grave malpractices but respondent
refused to institute disciplinary action reasoning that there should first be a verified
complaint before he could act on it. Complainant posited that respondent was
grossly ignorant of the rules on privileged communication, on evidence, on the crime
of perjury, and on forum shopping when he failed to dismiss the present
administrative case outright because it had no merit and when he ignored the perjury
and forum shopping committed by Sillo. Respondent denied the allegations and
contended that they were not only false and an unfortunate misappreciation of the
laws, facts and circumstances but also an act of harassment. If complainant felt
aggrieved by the report and recommendation, she could have filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Board's January 31, 2015 Resolution. Complainant claimed
that the only proof that the report and recommendation was adopted and approved
by the Board was the Notice of Resolution; and when she asked for a copy of the
transcript and resolution of the case, she was informed by the head of the records
section that it was confidential and that she should file a manifestation to secure a
copy. The Commission recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit. Due to this peculiar manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the
Court to conclude that the IBP is a sui generis public institution deliberately
organized, by both the legislative and judicial branches of government and
recognized by the present and past Constitutions, for the advancement of the legal
profession. This was aptly described in Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada where the
Court declared that: The derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative
complaints against lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to regulate,
supervise and control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of
its delegated power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the
should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by this Court. The IBP-
CBD's delegated function of entertaining complaints against lawyers is public in
nature; but the responsible officer performing such function is a private individual—
not a public officer. Nonetheless, IBP Commissioners and other IBP officers may be
held administratively liable for violation of the rules promulgated by this Court relative
to the integrated bar and to the practice of law. The Court evinces its observation
that the complainant's charge of delay in the resolution of the subject unsanctioned
pleadings of the complainant appears to be a mere retaliation on the adverse
Resolution No. XXI-205-074 dated January 31, 2015 in CBD Case No. 12-3457. The
Court had already declared that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate
remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy
exists and is available. The respondent's comment, that the complainant "must have
thought so highly of herself that she finds it necessary to declare that are not words a
graduate of the only Pontifical University in Asia and a law school ran by monks
would use, is merely a fair and realistic observation. CANON 8 – A lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Lawyers are
reminded to treat their fellow members of the legal profession and even their non-
lawyer adversaries with utmost candor, respect and dignity. More importantly, the
primary purpose of administrative disciplinary proceedings against delinquent
lawyers is to uphold the law and to prevent the ranks of the legal profession from
being corrupted by unscrupulous practices not to shelter or nurse a wounded ego.
Such is the reason why lawyers should always set a good example in not using the
law and the rules as weapons or tools of malicious vindication during petty
squabbles as it degrades the credibility of the legal profession and tarnishes its
integrity

Issues:

(1) Whether respondent may be held administratively liable in the same

manner as judges and other government officials

(2) Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for rendering an

alleged adverse judgment in his capacity as an investigating commissioner of the
IBP.

Ruling:

In view of the foregoing premises, the Court AGREES with the Report and
Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Discipline adopted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, and
dismisses the administrative complaint filed against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.
Furthermore, the Court warns Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo and her collaborating
counsel Atty. Gaudencio A. Barboza, Jr. to refrain from abusing the disciplinary
proceedings thru filing and maintaining frivolous administrative complaints against
fellow members of the Bar. A repetition of the same or commission of similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.

.
7. BRUNET
VS
ATTY. GUAREN
A.C. NO. 10164
MACRH 10, 2014

-FACTS
On August 9, 2002, complainant spouses Stephan and Virginia Brunet filed a
complaint against respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren before the Commission on Bar
Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Complainants alleged that in February
1997, they engaged the services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they
acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of Ten
Thousand Pesos including expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was agreed
that full payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title; that Atty.
Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand Pesos which they gave; that
Atty. Guaren took all the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-certified
true copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the deed of exchange, sketch plan,
deed of donation, survey plan, and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10,
1997, Atty. Guaren asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos which they
dutifully gave; that from 1997 to 2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the
case and each time he would say that the titling was in progress; that they became
bothered by the slow progress of the case so they demanded the return of the
money they paid; and that respondent agreed to return the same provided that the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos be deducted to answer for his professional fees.
Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client
relationship between them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against them in
a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu. Atty.
Guaren admitted that he indeed charged complainants an acceptance fee of
P10,000.00, but denied that the amount was inclusive of expenses for the titling of
the lot. He claimed, however, that he received the payment of P1,000.00 and
P6,000.00; that their agreement was that the case would be filed in court after the
complainants fully paid his acceptance fee; that he did not take the documents
relative to the titling of the lot except for the photocopy of the tax declaration; and
that he did not commit betrayal of trust and confidence when he participated in a
case filed against the complainants in MCTC explaining that his appearance was for
and in behalf of Atty. Ervin Estandante, the counsel on record, who failed to appear
in the said hearing.In the Report and Recommendation, dated August 24, 2012, the
Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Guaren to have violated the Canon of
Professional Responsibility when he accepted the titling of complainants' lot and
despite the acceptance of P7,000.00, he failed to perform his obligation and allowed
5 long years to elapse without any progress in the titling of the lot.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Atty. Guaren should also be disciplined for appearing in a case against
complainants without a written consent from the latter. The CBD recommended that
he be suspended for six months. In its May 20, 2013 Resolution, the IBP Board of
Governors, adopted and approved with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the CBD, suspending Atty. Guaren from the practice of law for
three months only. The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Board of Governors on
the unethical conduct of Atty. Guaren, except as to the penalty. The practice of law is
not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves. Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that: 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. In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted
that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee.
He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of
complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to
serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him. respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren is found guilty of having
violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.
8. BENJAMIN Q. ONG v. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS, AC. No.
10179, 2014-03-04

Facts:

In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to

respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After several calls and
personal interactions between them, Ong and Atty. Delos Santos
became... friends.[1] In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos
asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire
need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon
maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice... and
his good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos' financial
stability, Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos on January 29, 2008 the
amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latter's Metrobank Check
No. 0110268 postdated February 29, 2008.[2]

However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason
that the account was closed.[3] Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor
to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded immediate payment, but the
latter just ignored him.[4] When... efforts to collect remained futile, Ong
brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos.[5] Ong also brought this
disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar
of... the Philippines (IBP), which docketed the complaint as CBD Case
No. 11-2985.

In his Commissioner's Report,[6] IBP Bar Commissioner Jose I. Dela

Rama, Jr.

recommended that Atty. Delos Santos be held liable for violating Canon
1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and that the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for two years,... plus the return of the amount of P100,000.00 to the
complainant,

Issues:

By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Ruling:

We agree with the findings of the IBP but modify the recommended
penalty.
Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and
responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this regard,
good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his
admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in
order... for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar.

Being a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was well aware of the objectives
and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was
nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was penal in
character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved
herein... knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his
indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public
interest and public order

He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support
the Constitution... and obey the laws. He also took for granted the
express commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, viz:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.

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.

That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. His
being a lawyer invested him whether he was acting as such or in a non-
professional capacity with the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness
and candor in his relationship with others. There is no question... that a
lawyer could be disciplined not only for a malpractice in his profession,
but also for any misconduct committed outside of his professional
capacity.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court PRONOUNCES respondent ATTY. WILLIAM F.

DELOS SANTOS GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, and Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and, accordingly, SUSPENDS HIM FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EFFECTIVE FROM
NOTICE, with a stern warning that any similar infraction in the future
will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

Confidant to be appended to Atty. Delos Santos' personal record as an
attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.