Duchas dobles para piscinas

RATIO

From the records, it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS was never informed by DAVID of his real status as a married individual. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by DAVID only after BARRIENTOS became pregnant. Moreover, DAVID misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been separated from his wife for 16 years and even dangled a marriage proposal.

Interestingly enough, DAVID lived alone in Dipolog City though his son also studies in the same area. Moreover, he never introduced his son and went around with his friends as though he was never married. These circumstances belie DAVID‘S claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew about his marital status at the very start of the courtship.

But what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of DAVID‘S moral values when he said that ―I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married‖. Worse, he even suggested abortion. The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards of mental and moral fitness. DAVID having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action --- disbarment.

156 FLORES v CHUA

Facts:

- Ban Hua Flores seeks the disbarment of Atty. Enrique Chua on the following grounds:

o Chua notarized a deed of sale which contains the forged signature of Chua Beng (CB). The wife of CB says that CB could not have signed the deed because she was with CB the whole time before his death. Flores points out that Chua notarized the deed even if CB did not appear personally. o Chua falsified a petition filed with the SEC in order

to molest and harass Flores. Apparently, Chua

altered the petition to apply for a notice of lis pendens over the property of Flores. But, his plan failed because the register of deeds denied his application.

o Chua caused the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Visayas of a portion of a SEC decision which ordered complainant and others to pay 68 million. In these publications, Chua was always in the forefront claiming to e the lawyer of the winning parties. However, this publication is false because the order had not yet become final, it was still pending appeal. In his defense, Chua submitted evidence to show that a complaint for libel filed by Flores against him was dismissed by the prosecutor‘s office.

o Chua had already and has the propensity to bribe judges to gain a favorable judgment. Flores further alleges that there is a pattern of conduct on the part of Chua that tends towards the frustration of justice. Chua apparently uses dilatory tactics and has been reprimanded before.

o Chua is also charged with forum shopping. Issue:

- W/n Chua is guilty of these acts and should be disbarred. Held:

- SC says YES. Chua is disbarred

- On the first ground, SC finds Chua guilty of notarizing the deed of sale which contains a forged signature. Chua failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to his office by attesting to the fact that CB appeared before him and signed the deed when in truth and in fact said person did not do so. This is clearly a violation of the duties of a notary public to certify that the person signing the instrument is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it.

- There was no basis for the second ground but the Court said that his filing of the application for notice of lis pendens even if he was not counsel for the petitioners in the SEC case meant that he knew of such case. Thus, he shouldn‘t have filed the civil case involving the same issues. His act of filing the civil case amounted to forum shopping.

- The SC also found sufficient evidence to support the third ground. The other grounds were dismissed for lack of merit. - The Court reiterated that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.

157 BERBANO v BARCELONA

Facts: The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty. Daen as their atty.-in-fact. Atty. Daen was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. The heirs of Hilapo tried to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. Daen. The heirs were recommended to Atty. Barcelona. When the spouses visited Atty. Daen, they learned that Atty. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty. Barcelona. Atty. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty.

Page 176 of 203

Daen the next day. Because the heirs could not produce the total amount, they merely gave P15,700.

There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. Barcelona regarding the ―grease money‖ to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice. The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24,000. On another occasion, the heirs went to the house of Atty. Barcelona and gave P10,000. The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. Barcelona reached P64,000. Commissioner Bautista found Atty. to be guilty of malpractice and breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred.

Issue: W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred. Held: Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.

Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Its intention is to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the misconduct of the officers of the court.

In this case, Atty. demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that he had connections to secure the release of Atty. Daen. Atty. Barcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty. Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, Atty. Barcelona demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a member of this court.

158 TABAS v MANGIBIN

Facts:

-A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property in La Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. The deed of mortgage was registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union.

-Subsequently, a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and appeared before Mangibin, who was a notary public, and asked the latter to prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it

afterwards.

-Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again, this time to a rural bank

-Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned

discharge of REM was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. He even threatened to file a counter suit against her if she files a case against him.

-Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment.

-Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed the defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the identity of persons appearing before him, and that he had no available means of ascertaining their real identities.

Issue:

W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person appearing before him.

Held:

YES, Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty.

-Notarization is invested with public interest. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon an acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a document.

-A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document.

-Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions to ascertain her identity.

-Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1. His notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years.

159 IN RE ALMACEN

FACTS:

Atty Almecen is the counsel of Calero in the case of Yaptinchay vs. Calero

The trial court, after the hearing rendered judgment against his client he moved for reconsideration (MR) and served copy of the motion to the adverse party but failed to notify the latter of the date and place of the hearing

In the CA, the court moved to also disamiss the case for the reason that the MR does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing and is nothing but a useless piece of paper

The SC refised to tkae the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal

It was at this pont that Atty Almacen filed his "PETITION TO SURRENDER LAWYER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE"

The pleading filed by Atty Almacen is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and deregoratory remarks agaist the court, as well as its individual members.

Atty Almacen described the court as "a tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas of justice, who ignore without reason thier own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. he also referred to his client as "on who was deeply aggrieved by the court's unjust judgment" and has become " one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." He also referred to the member of the court as "justice as administered by the present members of the SUpreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb."

The court asked Atty Almacen to show cause why no disciplinary actions must be taken against him

Atty Almacen asked that he be given permission permission to give his answer in an open and public hearing. He reasoned that since the court is the complainant, prosecutor and judge, he preferred that he answer and be heard in an open and public hearing sa that the court could observe its sincerity and candor.

The court allowed Atty Almacen to file a written answer and thereafter be heard in an oral argument

But his written answer offers no apology but is full of sarcasm and innuendo (SEE PAGE 569-572)

Page 177 of 203

ISSUE:

W/N Atty Almacen is guilty HELD:

YES! and he is indefinitely suspended until further order form the SC Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. The decisions of the courta public property and the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, criticize and censure them as they see fit. BUT it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and rpopriety. A wide chasm exist between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and justices thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. it isn such misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action

In his relations with the court, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Statements made by an attorney in a private conversation or in the course of political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring scorn and disrepute to the administration of justice may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.

post-litigation utterances or publication made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their juducial actions, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcends the permissible bounds of fair commetns and legitimate criticism constitute grave professional misconduct.

there is no comfort in the argument of Atty. Almacen that his utterances were made after the judgments against his client attained finality. he could still be liable for contempt as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. THe pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is of no consequence. the sole objective of the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession.

160 RAYOS-OMBAC v RAYOS

Facts:

 Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac (lola) is the petitioner in this case. The respondent is Atty. Orlando Rayos (lawyer), her nephew.

 Jan. 1985: lawyer induced lola, who was then 85 years old, to withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust it to him for safekeeping.

 Lawyer made lola believe that if she would do so, all the money will be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and therefore exclude the other heirs from inheriting.

 Lola then withdrew all her money (P588K) and deposited it in the account of lawyer in Union Bank.

 Upon demands that the amount be returned, lawyer informed lola that he can only return P400K on installment. Pumayag na lang si lola kasi kelangan niya talaga ng pera. They signed a MOA regarding this transaction.

 However, the check given by lawyer to lola was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

 Lola then filed an estafa case against lawyer. Lawyer offered as settlement 2 second-hand cars and cash amounting to P40K. Lola refused the offer.

 Lawyer also filed cases against Lola. Estafa - because lola allegedly reneged on her promise to sell a certain parcel of

land. Another accusing lola of making false statements in the testate proceedings of her deceased husband.

 Lola then filed a case for disbarment on 2 grounds. (1) defrauding lola and (2) filing frivolous cases against her.

 IBP recommended that lawyer be suspended for 2 years.

 Lawyer then filed this motion to lift the suspension stating that lola has already withdrawn her complaint for disbarment Issue:

 W/N lawyer should be suspended for 2 years Held:

 Yes. In fact the SC raised the penalty to disbarment. (pinabayaan na lang sana niya yung suspension, baka di pa siya disbarred)

 The withdrawal of lola of her complaint has no effect on the disbarment proceedings.

 Lawyer violated the CPR as well as his oath when he deceived his 85 year old aunt.

 Lawyer‘s wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against lola.

 Lawyer‘s deceitful conduct makes him unworthy of membership in the legal profession.

161 IN RE LOZANO

FACTS

- There was a complaint against a Judge of First Instance which was referred to the Atty General for investigation, report and

recommendation. There was an SC resolution which makes such proceedings condiential in nature

-The investigation was conducted secretly. Notwithstanding, the editor of El Pueblo, Severino Lozano, printed an article written by Anastacio Quevedo, indicating that the hearing was held behind closed doors, and that the info of the reporter was obtained from outside the screen and from comments in social circles. The testimonies of the witnesses were mutilated and the report reflected upon the action of

the complainant to his possible advantage

ISSUE: WoN Lozano and Quevedo are quilty of contempt of court? HELD: YES. They are each required to pay the nominal sum of P20 RATIO:

1. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the SC. This power extends to administrative proceedings, as well as to suits at law. 2. As important as is the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary

162 CUENCO v FERNAN

See attachment…=)

163 IN RE LAURETA

Page 178 of 203