1. MELISSA ANGELA C. FERNANDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ALEJANDRO JOSE C.

PALLUGNA,
RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 9338 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3815). February 20, 2023

MELISSA ANGELA C. FERNANDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.

ALEJANDRO JOSE C. PALLUGNA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 9338 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3815). February 20, 2023

DOCTRINE: Canon 1 of the CPR requires that "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes" while Canon 19 states that
"a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law."

Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary is
disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a relative by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal within the fourth civil degree.

FACTS:

At the time where several individuals were at the Sprincruisers office for a Halloween
party, complainant claimed that a search warrant was implemented, in connection with a criminal
complaint filed by a Michael Turner, a client of Atty. Pallugna. During the conduct of the search
by the police, the respondent supposedly instructed the police officers to seize the cellular phones
of the people found inside the Sprintcruisers office, and he threatened them with warrantless
arrest and imprisonment should they refuse to surrender their cellular phones despite knowing
that cellular phones were not indicated as one of the items to be seized in the search warrant.

Finally, Fernando alleged that Atty. Pallugna violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized a secretary's certificate executed by his brother,
Glenn Pallugna (Glenn). In a comment filed by the respondent, he alleged that all the complaints
against him were based on pure hearsay, and thus, the disbarment case against him should be
dismissed.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Pallugna is liable for violation of Lawyer’s Oath, Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?

RULING/ RATIO DECIDENDI:

YES! Clearly, in an attempt further the interest of his client, Atty. Pallugna persuaded the
police officers to go beyond what was stated in the search warrant which violated the Lawyer's
Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Relevantly, Canon 1 of the CPR requires
that "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes" while Canon 19 states that "a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law." It must be emphasized that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but
to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his
conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.

As to Atty. Pallugna's violation of notarial rules, Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice provides that a notary is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a
relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree, to wit:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a

notarial act if he:

….

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or

consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

We note that Atty. Pallugna admitted that he notarized a secretary's certificate in which his
brother, Glenn, was the affiant. However, Atty. Pallugna claims that when Glenn executed it, the
latter was acting on behalf of a corporation and not in his personal capacity. The same is clearly
bereft of any merit and, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner in her Report
and Recommendation, betrays Atty. Pallugna's gross ignorance of notarial rules.

Relevantly, Section 2, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines the term
"principal" as referring to "a person appearing before the notary public whose act is the subject
of notarization." Here, it was Glenn who personally appeared before the notary public who
happens to be his brother, Atty. Pallugna. Likewise, it is Glenn's act as corporate secretary which
is the subject of notarization. Thus, We hold that Glenn is a principal under the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Considering the foregoing, Atty. Pallugna's act of notarizing the secretary's
certificate despite his brother being the principal constitutes a violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

FALLO/ DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

FOR THESE REASONS, this Court finds Atty. Alejandro Jose Pallugna GUILTY of
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Canons 1 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two years. However,
considering that he has already been disbarred, this penalty can no longer be imposed but
nevertheless should be considered in the event that he should apply for the lifting of his
disbarment. He is also ORDERED TO PAY a FINE in the amount of PHP 50,000.00.
 2. AURORA R. LADIM, ANGELITO A. ARDIENTE AND DANILO S. DELA CRUZ, COMPLAINTS, VS. ATTY.
PERLA D. RAMIREZ, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10372. February 21, 2023

AURORA R. LADIM, ANGELITO A. ARDIENTE AND DANILO S. DELA CRUZ,

COMPLAINTS, VS. ATTY. PERLA D. RAMIREZ, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10372. February 21, 2023

DOCTRINES: The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege clothed with
public interest. To enjoy the privilege of practicing law as officers of the Court, lawyers must
adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness and above all, they should always uphold the
dignity of each and every person by observing the basic principles of decency and respect for
others.

The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to
court orders and processes.

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

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.

A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.
 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This
esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is
born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity,
character, brains and skills in the honorable performance of professional duty.

FACTS:

Complainants Aurora R. Ladim, Angelito A. Ardiente and Danilo S. Dela Cruz (Ladim, et
al.) are workers of Lirio Apartments Condominium located in Makati City where respondent
Atty. Perla D. Ramirez (Atty. Ramirez) resides. The complainants filed a complaint in 2007 for
disbarment against Atty. Ramirez for her unruly and offensive behavior towards the residents and
employees of the condominium in various incidents from 1990 to 2007.

The respondent, knocking on their doors and kept asking "impertinent personal
questions," using offensive language. According to another tenant, she kept entering units
undergoing repairs because of her fear that people were damaging the building. On the day that
she entered one the unit, the keys hanging on the door cannot be found. The latest incident was
that Atty. Ramirez used offensive language while shouting at the employees of the condominium
and also started shouting to some residents telling them that they are prostitutes. She accused the
maintenance staff and security personnel of destroying the building and her car. To pacify her,
they tried to call her brother Dr. Nicholas Ramirez. Moreover, Atty. Ramirez has refused to pay
any of her association dues since 2004.

Atty. Ramirez did not admit nor deny the allegations before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). But instead, she sought refuge in her long years of service being a State
Prosecutor and moved for the outright dismissal of the complaints against her.

The Commissioner of the IBP concluded that Atty. Ramirez may have mental issues, thus
he simply recommended that Atty. Ramirez was reprimanded for her conduct. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Bar Commissioner.
 However, the Court believed that a mere reprimand was not enough to discipline the
respondent for her misbehavior. Thus, in a Resolution10 dated July 30, 2014, the Court found
Atty. Ramirez is liable for violation of Canon 7.03 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Code). She was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with a stem warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Ramirez requested for the lifting of her suspension on April 21, 2006. Atty. Layusa
of the Office of the Bar Council (OBC) informed Atty. Ramirez to file the required motion and
submit a sworn statement that she did not practice law during the period of her suspension. Atty.
Ramirez questioned the authority of Atty. Layusa in presenting the copies of Court Resolutions
on various disbarment cases as a guide and boastfully claimed that she studied law under a
former Associate Justice and she served a long time in the government service.

The OBC recommended the denial of the lifting of the suspension of Atty. Ramirez due to
non-submission of a sworn statement that she did not practice law and so the Court denied the
suspension for that reason.

Atty. Ramirez got angry with Atty. Layusa when she found out that the lifting of her
suspension was denied when she went to the OBC office for the follow-up on the status of her
request. She uttered offensive words to Atty. Layusa which was witnessed by the OBC staff and
the security personnel.

The OBC recommended the following actions: 1) the respondent's request for lifting of
the order of suspension should be denied; and 2) the respondent be disbarred from the practice of
law and her name be stricken from the roll of Attorney.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty.Peralta is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Ethics and be disbarred from the practice of law?

RULING/RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the OBC and imposes the penalty
of disbarment upon Atty. Perla Ramirez.
 The lifting of a lawyer's suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period as stated
in the Court's decision. An order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is
essential in order for the lawyer to resume the practice of the profession. Jurisprudence requires
that a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law should first make an application
for the lifting of the order of suspension and comply with the necessary requirements.

Atty. Ramirez did not comply with the guidelines for the lifting of her suspension after
the lapsed. aforesaid. Only the handwritten letter and her service record were submitted. She
failed to submit the sworn statement. Moreover, Atty. Ramirez violated the Lawyers Oath, Rule
7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 and Rule 11.03 of Canon 11.

Atty. Ramirez failed to file a sworn statement and she boldly berated and ridiculed Atty.
Layusa and made foul and offensive remarks to the Justices of this Court. She maligned not only
officers of the Court but the Court itself as an institution with her erratic outbursts in the confines
of this office. Evidently, she had shown arrogance and disrespectful in her dealings, whether in
her private or professional life, pompously using her title "Atty." as a license to belittle and mock
others who do not follow her suit. To the mind of the Court, her actions do not merit judicial
empathy. Lawyers should always guard their language because any careless remark can promote
distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people's confidence in the legal
profession, and erode public respect for it.

FALLO/DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds and declares respondent Atty. Perla D. Ramirez
GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and
Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is DISBARRED from
the practice of law and her name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to: (a) the Office of this Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b) the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (c) the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty.
Perla D. Ramirez's personal record.

SO ORDERED.
 3. MARILOU CASAS USAMA, COMPLAINANT, VS. (RET.) HON. OSCAR D. TOMARONG, BRANCH 28,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LILOY, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT
A.M. No. RTJ-21-017 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4935-RTJ) March 08, 2023

MARILOU CASAS USAMA, COMPLAINANT, VS. (RET.) HON. OSCAR D.

TOMARONG, BRANCH 28, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LILOY, ZAMBOANGA
DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT
A.M. No. RTJ-21-017 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4935-RTJ) March 08, 2023

DOCTRINES: The Judge’s patent disregard of elementary rules in the grant of bail applications
constitutes gross ignorance of the law which merits administrative sanction.

Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. A
judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty or corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply settled law and
jurisprudence.

When a judge displays utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he betrays the confidence of
the public in the courts.

FACTS:

The case refers to a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Marilou Casas Usama (complainant),

charging Judge Oscar D. Tomarong (respondent) of Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Liloy,
Zamboanga Del Norte (RTC-Branch 28) for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.

Alson Chan and Angeles Carloto ran for mayor of Zamboanga Del Norte, Municipality of
Tampilisan in the May 9, 2016. The police station at Tampilisan received a tip that a gray Hilux
van, owned by Alson Chan, was suspiciously roaming on the street of Barangay Camul in
Tampisan. The police enforcers went to the place and they saw men inside the van with firearms.
There was a gunfight between the police and Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers which
resulted to the death of the complainant’s husband, PO1 Mirdan Usama.
 The following day, May 5, 2016, Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers were arrested
and brought to the Police Station. Through his counsel, Chan filed an Application to Post Bail
and to Release the Detained Person Pending Filing of Proper Information and was able to secure
an Order granting the bail for ₱200,000.00

Chan and his campaign volunteers were subjected to inquest proceedings on May 06,
2016. The Provincial Prosecutor, on the same day prepared and signed the Information. They
were charged with the following: murder; two counts of attempted murder; illegal possession of
firearms under Section 28 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 10591, and illegal possession of
explosives under Section 1, RA 9616.

Also, on the same day, Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers filed before RTC-Branch 28 an
Extremely Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Preliminary Investigation, Suspension, and Bail. The
Provincial Prosecutor's Office was provided with a copy.
Edna Bernardita Chan, the wife of Alson Chan on May 7, 2016 filed with the RTC-
Branch a Petition for Habeas Corpus. Edna, alleged in the petition that Chan was unlawfully
arrested and he continues to be in prison even after the 36-hour permissible detention has been
lapsed and even after he posted a bail of ₱200,000.00.

The respondent acted on the petition of habeas corpus on May 09, 2016 and directed the
police officers to present Chan and his campaign volunteers to the Court for the hearing of
habeas case. The court held the hearing on May 10, 2016. Judge Tomarong directed the release
of Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers after the filing of the Informations. He insisted on
ordering the release of Alson Chan even though he had already issued his Order of Release after
Chan posted a bail on May 5, 2016. After posting a bail of ₱200,000.00 each, Alson Chan along
with his campaign volunteers were released.

Usama alleged that the bail application was filed by Alson Chan on May 5, 2016, a
Muslim Holiday, and hence, all the courts in Zamboanga Del Norte were closed. But the
respondent received the application and acted thereon even if his court was closed that day.
Moreover, the respondent granted the application for bail only "hours if not minutes" after it was
filed without conducting a hearing or notifying the prosecutor. Complainant Usama claimed that
respondent's acts, in violation of the Rules and jurisprudence, constitute Gross Ignorance of the
Law, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law
and Gross Misconduct?

RULING/RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Court finds the respondent administratively liable for (2) counts of Gross Ignorance
of the Law and two (2) counts of Gross Misconduct, all arising from two separate acts.
Considering that each act constitutes both Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct,
the Court imposes upon him the penalty of a fine in the amount of ₱110,000.00 for each act as
provided under Section 17(1)(c) in relation to Section 18 (b) as well as Section 21 of the Revised
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, or a total of ₱220,000.00.

Alson Chan together with his campaign volunteers were charged in one of the
Informations, not with Homicide (which is punishable by reclusion temporal), but with Murder,
among others. Article 24863 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
provides that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.

Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution provides in part that all persons, except those accused
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, must, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as provided by law.
While Under Section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, states that, no person charged with a
capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal
prosecution. With that, bail is a matter of discretion when a person is charged with a capital
offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua and the Judge's determination of the
requisite evidence as to whether the evidence of guilt of the person in custody of the law is strong
can only be reached after due hearing.

The respondent failed to notify the Provincial Prosecutor of the bail application and failed
to conduct a hearing on Alson Chan's bail application and there was not a single Information
filed against Chan. He failed to recognize the basic rules when he granted Chan's bail application
which constitutes Gross Ignorance of the Law, for that, he should be administratively liable.
Further, granted relief to Chan’s campaign volunteers who are not parties to the habeas corpus
case.
 The respondent is administratively liable on two acts, which constitute Gross Ignorance
of the Law and Gross Misconduct. These are (1) respondent's act of granting the application for
bail without hearing and without notifying the Provincial Prosecutor of Alson Chan's bail
application, and (2) respondent's act of ordering in the habeas corpus proceedings the release of
Alson Chan's campaign volunteers conditioned upon the posting of bail and despite them not
being parties to the habeas corpus case.

The respondent has retired effective April 1, 2019 by way of optional retirement,
therefore, he can no longer serve the penalty of suspension. Thus, the court believes that the
appropriate penalty to be imposed for each separate act constituting both Gross Ignorance of the
Law and Gross Misconduct should be a fine according to Revised Rule 140. Judge Tamorong
was penalized for the aforementioned acts and liable for the amount of ₱220,000.00, payable
within a period not exceeding three (3) months from the time the Decision is promulgated or will
be deducted from his retirement benefits.

FALLO/DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Retired Judge Oscar D. Tomarong, former Presiding
Judge of Branch 28, Regional Trial Court of Liloy, Zamboanga Del Norte, GUILTY of two (2)
counts of Gross Ignorance of the Law and two (2) counts Gross Misconduct, all arising from two
separate acts, and would have been meted with the penalty of SUSPENSION from office
without salary and other benefits for one (1) year for each act constituting Gross Ignorance of the
Law and Gross Misconduct, had he not retired on April 1, 2019. Respondent retired Judge Oscar
D. Tomarong is hereby ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of ₱110,000.00 for each act
constituting Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct, or a total of ₱220,000.00 within
a period not exceeding three (3) months from the time this Decision is promulgated. If the fine is
unpaid, such amount shall be deducted from his retirement benefits including his accrued leave
credits.

SO ORDERED.
 4. A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC. July 11, 2023

REQUEST OF THE PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DELETE

SECTION 22, CANON III OF THE PROPOSED CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC. July 11, 2023

DOCTRINE: All the lawyers of the legal services organization who participated in the handling
of a legal matter shall be covered by the rule on conflict of interest and confidentiality.

FACTS:

This refers to the April 20, 2023 Letter of the Chief of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO),
Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (Atty. Acosta), to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chief
Justice Gesmundo). In the said letter, Atty. Acosta prayed that:

SECTION 22, CANON III of the Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability, to wit:

"SECTION 22. Public Attorney's Office; conflict of interest. – The Public Attorney's Office
is the primary legal aid service of the government. In the pursuit of its mandate under its charter,
the Public Attorney's Office shall ensure ready access to its services by the marginalized sectors
of society in a manner that takes into consideration the avoidance of potential conflict of interest
situations which will leave these marginalized parties unassisted by counsel.

A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney's Office incident to
services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer's direct
supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public
Attorney's Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and
written informed consent."

ISSUE:

Whether or not Public Attorneys will be governed by the remaining provisions on conflict of
interest applicable to all members of the legal profession

RULING/RATIO DECIDENDI:
 The Court stresses that contrary to what Atty. Acosta is insinuating, the objections have
been duly taken into account by the Court in its deliberations on the CPRA. However, after due
consideration, the Court found no merit in the PAO's arguments and resolved to retain the assailed
provision.

While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and
democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many
types of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible
attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence
of the judiciary.20 There is a clear line between legitimate criticism and illegitimate attack, which
undermine the people's confidence in judiciary.

Intemperate and unfair criticism also constitutes a gross violation of the duty to respect the
courts that subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action. This is because the membership in the Bar
imposes upon a person no burden more basic than that of maintaining at all times the respect due
to the courts of justice, which is essential to the orderly administration of justice.21 Canon 11 of
the CPR enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers. This is echoed in Sec. 2, Canon II of the CPRA which requires lawyers to respect the
courts. The CPRA further imposes on lawyers the duty to uphold the dignity of the legal
profession in all social media interactions in a manner that enhances the people's confidence in the
legal system, as well as promote its responsible use.

FALLO/DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the Public Attorney's Office's request that Section 22, Canon III of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability be removed and temporarily not
implemented is DENIED for lack of merit. The Public Attorney's Office is directed to strictly
comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, specifically, Section 22,
Canon III.

Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta is directed to SHOW CAUSE, within an inextendible

period of ten (10) days from notice, why she should not be cited in indirect contempt.

She is further ordered to SHOW CAUSE, within an inextendible period of ten (10) days
from notice, why she should not be disciplined as a member of the bar for violation of Canon II,
Sections 2, 14, and 42 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta and all other lawyers of the Public Attorney's Office are
DIRECTED to refrain from making further statements relative to the subject matter of this case
in any forum. Atty. Acosta is lastly instructed to cease all efforts to contact, directly or indirectly,
any Member of the Court in regard to this matter.
 5. John Keng Seng a.k.a. John Sy Vs. Atty. Arnel Lapore
A.C. No. 12189. August 30, 2023

John Keng Seng a.k.a. John Sy Vs. Atty. Arnel Lapore

A.C. No. 12189. August 30, 2023

DOCTRINE:

● Discrimination, defined by the Court, is the failure to treat all persons equally where no
reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored.

FACTS:

● The Court's First Division issued a resolution on August 30, 2023, regarding
Administrative Case No. 12189 (formerly CBD Case No. 19-6178), involving a
complaint filed by John Keng Seng, also known as John Sy, against Atty. Arnet Lapore.
The case originated from a verified Complaint-Affidavit dated March 7, 2018, submitted
by John Keng Seng to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
● The complainant sought the disbarment of Atty. Arnet Lapore on grounds of racial
discrimination, professional misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
● The complainant, President of Campuestuhan, Inc., purchased land in Talisay City,
Bacolod, served by CENECO for electricity.
● Complainant sought CENECO's help, via respondent (former CENECO President), to
disconnect electricity for informal settlers on the land, but received no assistance.
● During a CENECO board meeting, respondent allegedly made a recorded racially
discriminatory remark, linking protection of settlers to complainant's Chinese descent.
● Complainant accused respondent of manipulating and misleading board members,
installing illegal connections, and abusing power in his rest house on government-owned
land.
● Respondent explained he advised due process for consumers under the Magna Carta of
Electricity Consumers, stating refusal was based on legal grounds, not racial
discrimination.
 ● Respondent argued the quoted remark did not target complainant's race, and the board's
position was grounded in law, insisting on no legal basis for the complaint.
● The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner, Jose Rogelio D.
Torres, Jr., in a report dated April 25, 2022, found that the complainant failed to prove the
allegations against the respondent.
● The commissioner concluded that there was no violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Lawyer's Oath, and no evidence of racial discrimination. The IBP
Board of Governors, in a resolution dated June 25, 2022, adopted the commissioner's
findings and recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

● Whether or not Atty. Lapore should be disbarred for racial discrimination, professional
misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

RULING/RATIO DECIDENDI:

● The Court adopts the IBP's findings and dismisses the complaint filed by the
complainant, John Keng Seng a.k.a. John Sy, for lack of merit.
● The Court emphasizes that the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations
with substantial evidence.
● It is noted that the complainant failed to substantiate his claims, did not specify any
provision in the Code of Professional Responsibility, and lacked clear, convincing
evidence. The Court rejects the claim of racial discrimination, agreeing with the
Investigating Commissioner that there is no evidence to suggest the respondent treated
the complainant differently based on his race.
● The respondent's explanation, asserting the importance of protecting individuals and
adherence to legal remedies, is deemed valid, and the Court finds no violation of
professional standards or the Lawyer's Oath.

FALLO/DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

● WHEREFORE, the Complaint-Affidavit is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.