Análisis de contenido de los documentos referidos al uso

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 practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and

honored fraternity.

In the case at bar, complainant alleged that respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit relations with both married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007, including complainant's own wife. Through documentary evidences in the form of email messages, as well as the corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant evidence.

In sum, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.

A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015

JOSEPH C. CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015

ROLANDO TOLENTINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODIL L. MILLADO AND ATTY.

FRANCISCO B. SIBAYAN, Respondents.

Facts:

Rolando Tolentino lose in October 28, 2013 Punong Barangay election by one (1) vote.

Immediately after election he filed an election protest before MTCC Tarlac City. Fortunately, MTCC Judge Ryan Scott Roloinos declared Tolentino as winner on the aforementioned election due to some altered ballots which favor to his opponent. He then filed motion for execution which was granted by the MTCC through S.O.

On the other hand, Manalo who was the opponent of Tolentino filed an appeal and certiorari before COMELEC. He was represented by Atty. Millado and later Atty. Sibayan collaborated. COMELEC enjoined the following S.O issued by MTTC. In the appeal, it was alleged that Atty. Millado misquoted the ruling in Fermo Vs. COMELEC while Atty. Sibayan wrote a misleading statement. Also both respondents alleged that the decision of MTCC was bareless.

Issue:

WON Atty. Millado and Atty. Sibayan have violated the CPR.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the respondents have violated Canon II Rule 11.03 and 11.04 of Code of profession responsibility.

AC. No. 10912, January 19, 2016

PAULINA T. YU, Complainant, v. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

It appears from the records that respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T.

Yu (complainant) in several cases after having received various amounts as acceptance fees.

On November 29, 2011, while the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting, respondent lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and pledged the same with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount of P29, 945.50. Respondent lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal use. In order to facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to complainant, Citystate Savings Bank Check No. 0088551, dated August 31, 2011, in the amount of P34, 500.00. Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn that the check was dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed." Complainant immediately notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check.

On March 23, 2012, a letter given by the complainant where she demanded for the refund of the acceptance fees received by respondent lawyer prior to the "abandonment" of the cases and the payment of the value of the jewelry, but to no avail.

In another letter, dated April 18, 2012, represented by another lawyer, Atty. Francisco C.

Miralles, complainant again demanded the redemption of the check in cash within five days from notice; the refund of the paid acceptance fees, in exchange for which no service was rendered; the payment of the value of the pledged jewelry in the amount of PI00, 000.00 in order to avoid the interests due and the possible foreclosure of the pledge; and moral damages of P 300,000.00.

And for his failure to heed the repeated demands, a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Las Pinas City, against him.⁷ On June 7, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of respondent lawyer from the practice of law. Based on the evidence on record, respondent lawyer was found to have violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which proscribed the borrowing of money from a client, unless the latter's interests were fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Worse, respondent lawyer had clearly issued a worthless check in violation of law which was against Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR stating that, "lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct."

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent lawyer may disbarred in violation of Canons 1, 16, 17,and Rules 1.01, 16.04 of the CPR.

RULING:

In the case at bench, the complaint stemmed from the use by respondent lawyer of his client's property. He had, indeed, come into possession of valuable pieces of jewelry which he presented as security in a contract of pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered her jewelry worth P135, 000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of Rule 16.04.

Obviously, his unfulfilled promise to facilitate the redemption of the jewelry and his act of issuing a worthless check constitute grave violations of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. These shortcomings on his part have seriously breached the highly fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients. Specifically, his act of issuing worthless checks patently violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR which requires that “lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, and thus seriously and irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession. Such conduct, while already off-putting when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more abhorrent when exhibited by a member of the Bar. In this case, respondent lawyer turned his back from the promise that he once made upon admission to the Bar. As "vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach."As to the penalty commensurate to respondent lawyer's actions, the Court takes heed of the guidepost provided by jurisprudence, viz.: "Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring person." Hence, caution is called for amidst the Court's plenary power to discipline erring lawyers.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin R. Dela Cruz GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules 1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court

hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for THREE YEARS with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely

.

A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974], January 26, 2016

GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.

FACTS:

Fabay filed a complaint for disbarment for violation of the notarial law and for Atty.

Resuena’s miscounduct as a lawyer. Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial law by notarizing an SPA notwithstanding that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead long before the execution of the SPA.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In its report and recommendation, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena to have violated the provisions of the notarial law. Despite this fact, respondent allowed them to be represented by Remedios Perez in the signing of the SPA without the proper authority provided for by law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law, his Lawyer’s oath and in Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

Yes. Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Law provides: “(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document - (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not

only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also made a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. A graver responsibility is placed upon Atty. Resuena by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. WHEREFORE, Atty. Rex A. Resuena is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public, and of violating the lawyer's oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED from the practice of law and likewise PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.

A.C. No. 10868 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-2041], January 26, 2016

CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS, Respondent.

FACTS

Cheryl Vasco Tamaray, filed a complaint before the IBP on July 30 2007 alleging that respondent Atty Deborah Daquis filed on her behalf a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her signature on the petition. She also alleged that Atty Daquis signed the petition for declaration of Nullity of Marriage as” counsel for petitioner”

referring to the complainant. The Commission on Bar Discipline required the parties to submit position papers but only the complainant complied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty Daquis violates canons from Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

Respondent is found guilty of Violating :

1. Canon 1 Rule 1.01 2. Canon 7, Rule 7.03

A comparison of the signatures appearing on The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on complainant’s identification cards show difference in the stroke. While there is no evidence to prove that the respondent forged complainant’s signature, the fact remains that respondent allowed a forged signature to be used on a petition she prepared and notarized.

3. Canon 10, Rule 10.01

4. Canon 17

The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty Daquis. The Office of the Bar confidant is directed to remove the name of DEBorah Z. Daquis from the Roll of Attorneys.

A.C. No. 10910 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3594], January 19, 2016

ANTERO M. SISON, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703), January 26, 2016

ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Atty. Francisco prays that Atty. Flores "be found guilty of violation of Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The facts shows that Atty. Francisco filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Rainier Fineza and his mother, Teodora Fineza, (Finezas who were represented by Atty. Flores.

ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores violated Canons 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Regarding the Finezas' Petition for Relief from Judgment, Atty. Flores alleges that he only assisted in the filing of the Petition.⁴⁰ He could not act as counsel because he had "no personal knowledge as to when the [Finezas] learned . . . of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration."

Atty. Flores also argues that he did not violate Canon 18 because in another case,⁴² which also involved Atty. Francisco and the Finezas, he was able to prevent the demolition of the Finezas'

family home.⁴³

The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Flores be found guilty of violating Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of Canon 10. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved the said Report and Recommendation. However, the Board of Governors Resolution is also silent on the issue of whether Atty. Flores violated Canon 18 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when Respondent did not state the exact date when he received a copy of the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. The record shows that he received it on June 3, 2009.⁷⁴ Respondent then alleges that he immediately informed the Finezas about the matter, but later on contradicted himself when he stated "that he has no personal knowledge as to when the Fineza[s] learned or had knowledge

of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration."⁷⁵

Respondent's statement that he had no knowledge when the Finezas learned about the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration is also contradicted by the Finezas' allegations in their Petition for Relief.

A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016

SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, Respondent.

FACTS:

Complainants filed a disbarment case on Atty. Limos for violation of 18.03 of the CPR, as she neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by not filing the adoption case - for almost a year until complainants finally withdrew their documents from respondent and opted to have the filing of the case handled by another lawyer. Worse, respondent refused to return the amount of P75,000.00 representing legal fees paid by complainants to her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Rule 18.03 of the CPR,

HELD:

Respondent's acts constitute a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit:

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, as in this case.

A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016

NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, Respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Ediza's liability stemmed from a Complaint/Affidavit¹ dated 8 September 2000 filed by the spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran (complainants). The subject of the complaint was a 3.5525 hectare parcel of unregistered land located in San Martin, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, which was covered by a tax declaration in the name of Sartiga Epal, a relative, who gave the property to complainants. From the records, the Court found that Atty. Ediza deceived

complainants when he asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a portion of their land to him. When the sale of complainants' land pushed through, Atty. Ediza received half of the amount of the proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled complainants into thinking that he would register, using the same proceeds, the remaining portion of their land.

These actions, which deprived complainants of their property, showed Atty. Ediza's behavior as

unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

ISSUE: WON Atty. is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility especially Canon 12 Rule 12.04?

In the present case, Atty. Ediza had previously been found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Despite the suspension, Atty. Ediza is once again demonstrating to this Court that not only is he unfit to stay in the legal profession for failing to protect the interests of his clients but is also remiss in following the dictates of the Court, which has administrative supervision over him.

In Martinez v. Zoleta,¹² we held that the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints. It bears stressing that a disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct¹³ and gross or willful insubordination¹⁴which warrant disciplinary sanction by this Court.¹⁵

The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State - the administration of justice - as an officer of the court.¹⁷ To enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession.¹⁸ Clearly, Atty. Ediza's conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing grave misconduct and willful insubordination, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.This Decision is immediately executory.

A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016

BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10945 (Formerly CBD 09-2507), February 23, 2016

ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR S.

ORRO, Respondent.

Facts:

The respondent did not inform the Ramiscals of the adverse decision of the CA which they only learned about from their neighbors.. They endeavored to communicate with the respondent but

their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally reached him, he asked an additional P7,000.00 from them as his fee in filing a motion for reconsideration in their behalf, albeit telling them that such motion would already be belated. . To their dismay, they later discovered that he did not file the motion for reconsideration; hence, the decision attained finality, eventually resulting in the loss of their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of P3,391,600.00

Issue:

WON the respondent did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of the Ramiscal

Held

Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar, solemnly takes the Lawyer’s Oath, by which he vows, among others, that: “I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients.” If he should violate the vow, he contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly its Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, viz.: 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

Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar, solemnly takes the Lawyer’s Oath, by which he vows, among others, that: “I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients.” If he should violate the vow, he contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly its Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, viz.: 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