SECOND DIVISION A.C. No.

6567 April 16, 2008

JOSE C. SABERON, complainant, vs. ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARON , respondent. DECISION CAR!IO "ORALES, J.# In a Complaint filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant, this Court, complainant Jose C. Saberon (complainant) charged tt!. "ernando #. $arong (respondent) of grave misconduct for allegedl! using abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BS%). #he antecedent facts of the case are as follo&s' Complainant filed before the BS% a %etition against Surigaonon )ural Ban*ing Corporation (the ban*) and lfredo #an Bonpin (Bonpin), &hose famil! comprises the ma+orit! stoc*holders of the ban*, for cancellation of the ban*,s registration and franchise. #he %etition, he said, arose from the ban*,s and-or Bonpin,s refusal to return various chec*s and land titles, &hich &ere given to secure a loan obtained b! his (complainant,s) &ife, despite alleged full pa!ment of the loan and interests. )espondent, in.house counsel and acting corporate secretar! of the ban*, filed an ns&er &ith ffirmative 0 /efenses to the %etition stating, inter alia, 1. #hat this is another in the series of blac*mail suits filed b! plaintiff 2herein complainant Jose C. Saberon3 and his &ife to coerce the Ban* and 4r. Bonpin for financial gain 5 6 6 6 6. (8mphasis and underscoring supplied) )espondent made statements of the same tenor in his 1 )e+oinder to complainant,s )epl!. "inding the aforementioned statements to be 9totall! malicious, viscous 2sic3 and bereft of an! factual or legal basis,9 complainant filed the present complaint. Complainant contends that he filed the %etition before the BS% in the legitimate e6ercise of his constitutional right to see* redress of his grievances: and that respondent, as in.
7 ( 1

house counsel and acting corporate secretar! of the ban*, &as full! a&are that the loan obtained b! his (complainant,s) &ife in behalf of 9her children9 had been paid in full, hence, there &as no more reason to continue holding the collaterals. Complainant adds that respondent aided and abetted the infliction of damages upon his &ife and 9her children9 &ho &ere thus deprived of the use of the mortgaged propert!. In his Comment to the present complaint against him, respondent argues that' (1) there &as 9nothing abusive, offensive or other&ise improper9 in the &a! he used the &ord 9blac*mail9 to characteri<e the suit against his clients: and (() &hen a la&!er files a responsive pleading, he is not in an! &a! aiding or abetting the infliction of damages upon the other part!. B! )esolution of 4arch 1;, (==1, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines for investigation, report and recommendation. In his )eport and )ecommendation dated June (1, ? (==;, IB% Investigating Commissioner /ennis . B. "una held that the &ord 9blac*mail9 connotes something sinister and criminal. @nless the person accused thereof is criminall! charged &ith e6tortion, he added, it &ould be imprudent, if not offensive, to characteri<e that person,s act as blac*mail. Commissioner "una stressed that a counsel is e6pected onl! to present factual arguments and to anchor his case on the legal merits of his client,s claim or defense in line &ith his dut! under )ule 1A.=1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!, as follo&s' la&!er shall emplo! onl! fair and honest means to attain the la&ful ob+ectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in an! case or proceeding. 4oreover, he noted that in espousing a client,s cause, respondent should not state his personal belief as to the A soundness or +ustice of his case pursuant to Canon 11 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. #he Investigating Commissioner also opined that b! using &ords that &ere 9unnecessar! and irrelevant to the case,9 respondent &ent 9overboard and crossed the line9 of professional conduct. In vie& thereof, he recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of la& for 0= da!s.
> ;

PALE cases

B! )esolution Bo. CDII.(==>.=0; of Januar! 1?, (==>, the IB% Board of Eovernors disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lac* of merit. #he Commission on Bar /iscipline, b! letter of 4arch (;, 11 (==>, transmitted the records of the case to this Court. Complainant appealed the )esolution of the IB% Board of Eovernors to this Court via a petition filed on 4arch >, 1( (==>, under Section 1( (c) of )ule 10A.B of the )evised )ules of Court. Complainant challenges the IB% Board of Eovernor,s )esolution as illegal and void ab initio for violating the mandator! reFuirements of Section 1((a) of )ule 10A.B of the )evised )ules of Court that the same be 9reduced to &riting, clearl! and distinctl! stating the facts and the reasons on &hich it is based.9 "inding the ruling of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent is guilt! of grave misconduct to be in accordance &ith the evidence, complainant nevertheless submits that the recommended penalt! of suspension should be modified to disbarment. #he offense committed b! respondent, he posits, manifests an evil motive and is therefore an infraction involving moral turpitude. In his Comment to 2the3 %etition for )evie&, respondent states that the administrative complaint against him is a harassment suit given that it &as in his capacit! as counsel for the ban* and Bonpin that he filed the ns&er ob+ected to b! complainant. 4oreover, respondent claims that the purportedl! offensive allegation &as a statement of fact &hich he had bac*ed up &ith a narration of the chronological incidents and suits filed b! complainant and his &ife against his clients. #hat being the case, he contends that the allegation made in the ns&er must be considered absolutel! privileged +ust li*e allegations made in an! complaint or initiator! pleading. )espondent in fact counters that it &as complainant himself &ho had made serious imputations of &rongdoing against his clients 5 the ban* for allegedl! being engaged in some illegal activities, and Bonpin for misrepresenting himself as a "ilipino. Bonetheless, respondent pleads that at the time the allegedl! abusive and offensive language &as used, he &as onl! t&o !ears into the profession, &ith nar! an intention of bringing dishonor to it. Ge admits that because of some infelicities of language, he ma! have stirred up

1=

complainant,s indignation for &hich he as*ed the latter,s and this Court,s clemenc!. In his )epl!, complainant counters that respondent,s Comment reveals the latter,s propensit! to deliberatel! state a falsehood: and that respondent,s claim that the administrative complaint &as a 9harassing act,9 deducible from the 9fact that 2it3 post.dates a series of suits, none of &hich has prospered 6 6 6 against the same rural ban* and its o&ner,9 is bereft of factual basis. Complainant goes on to argue that respondent, as counsel for Bonpin, *ne& of the t&o criminal cases he and his &ife had filed against Bonpin and, as admitted b! respondent, of the criminal charges against him for libel arising from his imputations of blac*mail, e6tortion or robber! against him and his &ife. "inall!, complainant refuses to accede to respondent,s entreat! for clemenc!. #his Court finds respondent guilt! of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings. #he Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! mandates' C BOB ? . la&!er shall conduct himself &ith courtes!, fairness and candor to&ard his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. )ule ?.=1 . la&!er shall not, in his professional dealings, use language &hich is abusive, offensive or other&ise improper. C BOB 11 . la&!er shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to +udicial officers and should insist on similar conduct b! others. )ule 11.=0 . la&!er shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. #o be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal s!stem has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their dut! to advance the interests of their 17 clients. Go&ever, &hile a la&!er is entitled to present his case &ith vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not +ustif! the use 11 of offensive and abusive language. $anguage abounds
10

PALE cases

&ith countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogator!, illuminating but 1; not offensive. On man! occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personalit! and to advance no fact pre+udicial to the honor or reputation of a part! or &itness, unless reFuired b! the +ustice of the cause 1> &ith &hich he is charged. In *eeping &ith the dignit! of the legal profession, a la&!er,s language even in his 1? pleadings must be dignified. It is of no conseFuence that the allegedl! malicious statements of respondent &ere made not before a court but before the BS%. similar submission that actuations of and statements made b! la&!ers before the Bational $abor )elations Commission (B$)C) are not covered b! the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!, the B$)C not being a court, 1A &as struc* do&n in Lubiano v. Gordolla, thus' )espondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the Bational $abor )elations Commission, he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath.bound servant of the la&, &hose first dut! is not to his client but to the administration of +ustice and &hose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulousl! observant of la& (= and ethics. #he observation applies &ith eFual force to the case at bar. )especting respondent,s argument that the matters stated in the ns&er he filed before the BS% &ere privileged, it suffices to stress that la&!ers, though the! are allo&ed a latitude of pertinent remar* or comment in the furtherance of the causes the! uphold and for the felicit! of their clients, should not trench be!ond the bounds of relevanc! and (1 propriet! in ma*ing such remar* or comment. #rue, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of +udicial proceedings have consistentl! been considered as absolutel! privileged, ho&ever false or malicious the! ma! be, but onl! for so long as the! are pertinent and relevant to (( the sub+ect of inFuir!. #he test of relevanc! has been stated, thus' 6 6 6. s to the degree of relevanc! or pertinenc! necessar! to ma*e alleged defamator! matters privileged the courts favor a liberal rule. #he matter to &hich the privilege does not e6tend must be so palpabl! &anting in relation to the sub+ect matter of the controvers! that no reasonable man can

doubt its relevanc! and impropriet!. In order that matter alleged in a pleading ma! be privileged, it need not be in ever! case material to the issues presented b! the pleadings. It must, ho&ever, be legitimatel! related thereto, or so pertinent to the sub+ect of the controvers! that it ma! become the (0 sub+ect of inFuir! in the course of the trial 6 6 6. Eranting that the proceedings before the BS% parta*e of the nature of +udicial proceedings, the ascription of ,blac*mail, in the ns&er and )e+oinder filed b! respondent is not legitimatel! related or pertinent to the sub+ect matters of inFuir! before the BS%, &hich &ere Bonpin,s alleged alien citi<enship and ma+orit! stoc*holding in the ban*. #hose issues &ere ampl! discussed in the ns&er &ith ffirmative /efenses &ithout need of the further allegation that the %etition &as 9another in a series of $l%&'(%il suits . . . to coerce the Ban* and 4r. Bonpin for financial gain.9 Gence, such allegation &as unnecessar! and uncalled for. 4ore so, considering that complainant and his &ife &ere &ell &ithin their rights to file the cases against the ban* and-or Bonpin to protect their interests and see* redress of their grievances. )especting the assailed )esolution of the IB% Board of Eovernors, indeed onl! a 9Botice of )esolution9 &as transmitted to this Court, together &ith the )ecords of the case, &hich Botice simpl! stated that on Januar! 1?, (==>, the IB% Board of Eovernors passed )esolution Bo. CDII. (==>.=0; in &hich it' )8SO$D8/ to 48B/, as it is hereb! 48B/8/, the )ecommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and to %%)OD8 the /IS4ISS $ of the above.entitled case for lac* of merit. @pon such Botice, it is evident that there is no compliance &ith the procedural reFuirement that the IB% Board of Eovernors, decision shall state clearl! and distinctl! the findings of facts or la& on &hich the same is based. #hus Section 1( of )ule 10A.B of the )ules of Court provides' S8C. 1(. )evie& and decision b! the Board of Eovernors. . (a) 8ver! case heard b! an investigator shall be revie&ed b! the IB% Board of Eovernors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it b! the Investigator &ith his report. T)* +*&i,io- o. /)* Bo%r+ 0po- ,0&) r*1i*2 ,)%ll $* i- 2ri/i-3 %-+ ,)%ll &l*%rl4 %-+ +i,/i-&/l4 ,/%/* /)* .%&/, %-+ /)* r*%,o-, o- 2)i&) i/ i, $%,*+. It shall be promulgated &ithin a period not e6ceeding thirt! (0=) da!s from the ne6t meeting of the Board follo&ing the submittal

PALE cases

of the Investigator,s report. (8mphasis and underscoring supplied) #he above reFuirement serves a ver! important function not +ust to inform the parties of the reason for the decision as &ould enable them on appeal to point out and ob+ect to the findings &ith &hich the! are not in agreement, but also to assure the parties that the Board of Eovernors has reached (7 the +udgment through the process of legal reasoning. Hith regard to complainant,s plea that respondent be disbarred, this Court has consistentl! considered disbarment and suspension of an attorne! as the most severe forms of disciplinar! action, &hich should be imposed &ith great caution. #he! should be meted out onl! for dul! proven (1 serious administrative charges. #hus, &hile respondent is guilt! of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not of a grievous character as to merit respondent,s disbarment. In light of respondent,s apologies, the Court finds it best to temper the penalt! for his infraction &hich, under the circumstances, is considered simple, rather than grave, misconduct. 56EREFORE, complainant,s petition is partl! RANTED.

It appears that through la&i,s agenc!, a contract &as e6ecuted for the purchase on installments b! lau!a of one of the housing units belonging to the above mentioned firm (hereafter, simpl! Dillarosa I Co.): and in connection there&ith, a housing loan &as also granted to lau!a b! the Bational Gome 4ortgage "inance Corporation (BG4"C). Bot long after&ards, or more precisel! on /ecember 11, 1AA1, lau!a addressed a letter to the %resident of Dillarosa I Co. advising of the termination of his contract &ith the compan!. Ge &rote' 9 JJ I am formall! and officiall! &ithdra&ing from and notif!ing !ou of m! intent to terminate the Contract- greement entered into bet&een me and !our compan!, as represented b! !our Sales gent-Coordinator, SO%GI $ HI, of !our compan!,s branch office here in Caga!an de Oro Cit!, on the grounds that m! consent &as vitiated b! gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonest! and abuse of confidence b! the aforesaid sales agent &hich made said contract void ab initio. Said sales agent acting in bad faith perpetrated such illegal and unauthori<ed acts &hich made said contract an Onerous Contract pre+udicial to m! rights and interests.9 Ge then proceeded to e6pound in considerable detail and Fuite acerbic language on the 9grounds &hich could evidence the bad faith, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest! and abuse of confidence b! the unscrupulous sales agent JJ :9 and closed &ith the plea that Dillarosa I Co. 9agree for the mutual rescission of our contract, even as I inform !ou that I categoricall! state on record that I am terminating the contract JJ. I hope I do not have to resort to an! legal action before said onerous and manipulated contract against m! interest be annulled. I &as actuall! fooled b! !our sales agent, hence the need to annul the controversial contract.9 lau!a sent a cop! of the letter to the Dice.%resident of Dillarosa I Co. at San %edro, Eusa, Caga!an de Oro Cit!. #he envelope containing it, and &hich actuall! &ent through the post, bore no stamps. Instead at the right hand corner above the description of the addressee, the &ords, 9"ree %ostage K %/ (;,9 had been t!ped. On the same date, /ecember 11, 1AA1, lau!a also &rote to 4r. "ermin #. r<aga, Dice.%resident, Credit I Collection Eroup of the Bational Gome 4ortgage "inance Corporation (BG4"C) at Salcedo Dillage, 4a*ati Cit!, repudiating as fraudulent and void his contract &ith Dillarosa I Co.: and as*ing for cancellation of his housing loan in connection there&ith, &hich &as pa!able from salar! deductions at the rate of %7,00?.== a month. mong other

)espondent, tt!. "ernando #. $arong, is found guilt! of SI"!LE "ISCOND7CT for using intemperate language. Ge is FINED %(,=== &ith a stern 5ARNIN that a repetition of this or similar act &ill be dealt &ith more severel!. $et a cop! of this /ecision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent. SO ORDERED. #GI)/ /IDISIOB 8A.". SDC9:7929!. F*$r0%r4 2;, 1::7< SO!6IA ALA5I, complainant, vs. AS6ARY ". ALA7YA, Cl*r' o. Co0r/ VI, S)%ri=% Di,/ri&/ Co0r/, "%r%2i Ci/4,respondent. DECISION NARVASA, C.J.# Sophia la&i &as (and presumabl! still is) a sales representative (or coordinator) of 8. B. Dillarosa I %artners Co., $td. of /avao Cit!, a real estate and housing compan!. shari 4. lau!a is the incumbent e6ecutive cler* of court of the 7th Judicial Shari,a /istrict in 4ara&i Cit!. #he! &ere classmates, and used to be friends.

PALE cases

things, he said' 9 JJ (#)hrough this &ritten notice, I am terminating, as I hereb! annul, cancel, rescind and voided, the ,manipulated contract, entered into bet&een me and the 8.B. Dillarosa I %artner Co., $td., as represented b! its sales agent-coordinator, SO%GI $ HI, &ho maliciousl! and fraudulentl! manipulated said contract and unla&full! secured and pursued the housing loan &ithout m! authorit! and against m! &ill. #hus, the contract itself is deemed to be void ab initio in vie& of the attending circumstances, that m! consent &as vitiated b! misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonest!, and abuse of confidence: and that there &as no meeting of the minds bet&een me and the s&indling sales agent &ho concealed the real facts from me.9 nd, as in his letter to Dillarosa I Co., he narrated in some detail &hat he too* to be the anomalous actuations of Sophia la&i. lau!a &rote three other letters to 4r. r<aga of the BG4"C, dated "ebruar! (1, 1AA;, pril 11, 1AA;, and 4a! 0, 1AA;, in all of &hich, for the same reasons alread! cited, he insisted on the cancellation of his housing loan and discontinuance of deductions from his salar! on account a thereof. Ge also &rote on Januar! 1?, 1AA; to 4s. Cora<on 4. Ordoe<, Gead of the "iscal 4anagement I Budget Office, and to the Chief, "inance /ivision, both of this Court, to stop deductions from his salar! in relation to the loan in Fuestion, again asserting the anomalous manner b! &hich he &as allegedl! duped into entering into the contracts b! b 9the scheming sales agent.9 #he upshot &as that in 4a!, 1AA;, the BG4"C &rote to the Supreme Court reFuesting it to stop deductions on lau!a,s @G$% loan 9effective 4a! 1AA;,9 and began negotiating &ith Dillarosa I Co. 9for the bu!.bac* of JJ ( lau!a,s) mortgage, and JJ the refund of JJ (his) c pa!ments.9 On learning of lau!a,s letter to Dillarosa I Co. of /ecember 11, 1AA1, Sophia la&i filed &ith this Court a verified complaint dated Januar! (1, 1AA; .. to &hich she appended a cop! of the letter, and of the above mentioned envelope bearing the t!pe&ritten &ords, 9"ree %ostage K 213 %/ (;.9 In that complaint, she accused lau!a of' 1. 9Imputation of malicious and libelous charges &ith no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and evident bad faith:9 (. 9Causing undue in+ur! to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation:9

0. 9@nauthori<ed en+o!ment of the privilege of free postage JJ:9 and 7. @surpation of the title of 9attorne!,9 &hich onl! regular members of the %hilippine Bar ma! properl! use. She deplored lau!a,s references to her as 9unscrupulous, s&indler, forger, manipulator, etc.9 &ithout 9even a bit of evidence to cloth (sic) his allegations &ith the essence of truth,9 denouncing his imputations as irresponsible, 9all concoctions, lies, baseless and coupled &ith manifest ignorance and evident bad faith,9 and asserting that all her dealings &ith lau!a had been regular and completel! transparent. She closed &ith the plea that lau!a 9be dismissed from the service, or be appropriatel! disciplined (sic) JJ 9 #he Court resolved to order lau!a to comment on the complaint. Conformabl! &ith established usage that notices of resolutions emanate from the corresponding Office of the Cler* of Court, the notice of resolution in this case &as signed b! tt!. lfredo %. 4arasigan, ssistant /ivision 2(3 Cler* of Court. lau!a first submitted a 9%reliminar! Comment9 in &hich he Fuestioned the authorit! of tt!. 4arasigan to reFuire an e6planation of him, this po&er pertaining, according to him, not to 9a mere sst. /iv. Cler* of Court investigating an 86ecutive Cler* of Court.9 but onl! to the /istrict Judge, the Court dministrator or the Chief Justice, and voiced the suspicion that the )esolution &as the result of a 9strong lin*9 bet&een 4s. la&i and tt!. 4arasigan,s office. Ge also averred that the complaint had no factual basis: la&i &as envious of him for being not onl! 9the 86ecutive Cler* of court and e6.officio %rovincial Sheriff and 273 /istrict )egistrar,9 but also 9a scion of a )o!al "amil! JJ.9 In a subseFuent letter to tt!. 4arasigan, but this time 213 in much less aggressive, even obseFuious tones, lau!a reFuested the former to give him a cop! of the complaint in 2;3 order that he might comment thereon. Ge stated that his acts as cler* of court &ere done in good faith and &ithin the confines of the la&: and that Sophia la&i as sales agent of Dillarosa I Co. had, b! falsif!ing his signature, fraudulentl! bound him to a housing loan contract entailing monthl! deductions of %7,000.1= from his salar!. nd in his comment thereafter submitted under date of June 1, 1AA;, lau!a contended that it &as he &ho had suffered 9undue in+ur!, mental anguish, sleepless nights, &ounded feelings and untold financial suffering,9 considering that in si6 months, a total of %(;,=(?.;= had 2>3 been deducted from his salar!. Ge declared that there &as no basis for the complaint: in communicating &ith Dillarosa
203

PALE cases

I Co. he had merel! acted in defense of his rights. Ge denied an! abuse of the fran*ing privilege, sa!ing that he gave %(=.== plus transportation fare to a subordinate &hom he entrusted &ith the mailing of certain letters: that the &ords' 9"ree %ostage K %/ (;,9 &ere t!pe&ritten on the envelope b! some other person, an averment corroborated b! the affidavit of bsamen C. /omocao, Cler* ID (subscribed and s&orn to before respondent himself, and 2?3 attached to the comment as nne6 J): and as far as he *ne&, his subordinate mailed the letters &ith the use of the mone! he had given for postage, and if those letters &ere indeed mi6ed &ith the official mail of the court, this had 2A3 occurred inadvertentl! and because of an honest mista*e. lau!a +ustified his use of the title, 9attorne!,9 b! the assertion that it is 9le6icall! s!non!mous9 &ith 9Counsellors. at.la&,9 a title to &hich Shari,a la&!ers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of 9attorne!9 because 9counsellor9 is often mista*en for 9councilor,9 9*onsehal or the 4aranao term 9consial,9 connoting a local legislator beholden to the ma!or. Hithal, he does not consider himself a la&!er. Ge pleads for the Court,s compassion, alleging that &hat he did 9is e6pected of an! man undul! pre+udiced and 21=3 in+ured.9 Ge claims he &as manipulated into reposing his 2113 trust in la&i, a classmate and friend. Ge &as induced to sign a blan* contract on la&i,s assurance that she &ould sho& the completed document to him later for correction, but she had since avoided him: despite 9numerous letters and follo&.ups9 he still does not *no& &here the propert! .. sub+ect of his supposed agreement &ith la&i,s principal, 21(3 Dillarosa I Co. .. is situated: Ge sa!s la&i someho& got his ESIS polic! from his &ife, and although she promised to return it the ne6t da!, she did not do so until after several months. Ge also claims that in connection &ith his contract &ith Dillarosa I Co., la&i forged his signature on such pertinent documents as those regarding the do&n pa!ment, clearance, la!.out, receipt of the *e! of the house, salar! 2103 deduction, none of &hich he ever sa&. verring in fine that his acts in Fuestion &ere done &ithout malice, lau!a pra!s for the dismissal of the complaint for lac* of merit, it consisting of 9fallacious, malicious and baseless allegations,9 and complainant la&i having come to the Court &ith unclean hands, her complicit! in the fraudulent housing loan being apparent and demonstrable. It ma! be mentioned that in contrast to his t&o (() letters to ssistant Cler* of Court 4arasigan (dated pril 1A, 1AA; and pril ((, 1AA;), and his t&o (() earlier letters both dated /ecember 11, 1AA; .. all of &hich he signed as 9 tt!. shar! 4. lau!a9 .. in his Comment of June 1, 1AA;,

he does not use the title but refers to himself as 9/ #@ SG )L 4. $ @L .9 #he Court referred the case to the Office of the Court dministrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.
2173

#he first accusation against lau!a is that in his aforesaid letters, he made 9malicious and libelous charges (against la&i) &ith no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and evident bad faith,9 resulting in 9undue in+ur! to (her) and blemishing her honor and established reputation.9 In those letters, lau!a had &ritten inter alia that' 1) la&i obtained his consent to the contracts in Fuestion 9b! gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonest! and abuse of confidence:9 () la&i acted in bad faith and perpetrated JJ illegal and unauthori<ed acts JJ JJ pre+udicial to JJ (his) rights and interests:9 0) la&i &as an 9unscrupulous (and 9s&indling9) sales agent9 &ho had fooled him b! 9deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest! and abuse of confidence:9 and 7) la&i had maliciousl! and fraudulentl! manipulated the contract &ith Dillarosa I Co., and unla&full! secured and pursued the housing loan &ithout JJ (his) authorit! and against JJ (his) &ill,9 and 9concealed the real facts JJ.9 lau!a,s defense essentiall! is that in ma*ing these statements, he &as merel! acting in defense of his rights, and doing onl! &hat 9is e6pected of an! man undul! pre+udiced and in+ured,9 &ho had suffered 9mental anguish, sleepless nights, &ounded feelings and untold financial suffering,9 considering that in si6 months, a total 2113 of %(;,=(?.;= had been deducted from his salar!. #he Code of Conduct and 8thical Standards for %ublic Officials and 8mplo!ees () ;>10) inter alia enunciates the State polic! of promoting a high standard of ethics and 21;3 utmost responsibilit! in the public service. Section 7 of the Code commands that 9(p)ublic officials and emplo!ees JJ at all times respect the rights of others, and JJ refrain from doing acts contrar! to la&, good morals, good customs, public polic!, public order, public safet! and public 21>3 interest.9 4ore than once has this Court emphasi<ed that 9the conduct and behavior of ever! official and emplo!ee of an agenc! involved in the administration of +ustice, from the presiding +udge to the most +unior cler*, should be

PALE cases

circumscribed &ith the heav! burden of responsibilit!. #heir conduct must at all times be characteri<ed b!, among others, strict propriet! and decorum so as to earn and *eep 21?3 the respect of the public for the +udiciar!.9 Bo&, it does not appear to the Court consistent &ith good morals, good customs or public polic!, or respect for the rights of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed .. ho&ever sincerel! .. to be deceitful, fraudulent or malicious, in e6cessivel! intemperate. insulting or virulent language. lau!a is evidentl! convinced that he has a right of action against Sophia la&i. #he la& reFuires that he e6ercise that right &ith propriet!, &ithout malice or vindictiveness, or undue harm to an!one: in a manner consistent &ith good morals, good customs, public polic!, public order, supra: or other&ise stated, that he 9act &ith +ustice, give ever!one his due, and observe honest! and 21A3 good faith.9 )ighteous indignation, or vindication of right cannot +ustif! resort to vituperative language, or do&nright name.calling. s a member of the Shari,a Bar and an officer of a Court, la&i is sub+ect to a standard of conduct more stringent than for most other government &or*ers. s a man of the la&, he ma! not use language &hich is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or other&ise improper. 2(=3 s a +udicial emplo!ee, it is e6pected that he accord respect for the person and the rights of others at all times, and that his ever! act and &ord should be characteri<ed b! prudence, restraint, courtes!, dignit!. Gis radical deviation from these salutar! norms might perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be e6cused, b! his strongl! held conviction that he had been grievousl! &ronged. s regards lau!a,s use of the title of 9 ttorne!,9 this Court has alread! had occasion to declare that persons &ho pass the Shari,a Bar are not full.fledged members of the %hilippine Bar, hence ma! onl! practice la& before Shari,a 2(13 courts. Hhile one &ho has been admitted to the Shari,a Bar, and one &ho has been admitted to the %hilippine Bar, ma! both be considered 9counsellors,9 in the sense that the! give counsel or advice in a professional capacit!, onl! the latter is an 9attorne!.9 #he title of 9attorne!9 is reserved to those &ho, having obtained the necessar! degree in the stud! of la& and successfull! ta*en the Bar 86aminations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines and remain members thereof in good standing: and it is the! onl! &ho are authori<ed to practice la& in this +urisdiction. lau!a sa!s he does not &ish to use the title, 9counsellor9 or 9counsellor.at.la&,9 because in his region, there are pe+orative connotations to the term, or it is confusingl! similar to that given to local legislators. #he ratiocination, valid or not, is of no moment. Gis disinclination to use the title of 9counsellor9 does not

&arrant his use of the title of attorne!. "inall!, respecting lau!a,s alleged unauthori<ed use of the fran*ing privilege, the record contains no evidence adeFuatel! establishing the accusation. 56EREFORE, respondent shari 4. lau!a is hereb!

)8%)I4 B/8/ for the use of e6cessivel! intemperate, insulting or virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a +udicial officer, and for usurping the title of attorne!: and he is &arned that an! similar or other impropriet! or misconduct in the future &ill be dealt &ith more severel!. SO ORDERED.

S8COB/ /IDISIOB 8A.C. No. ;>70. "%4 25, 200;< DO7 LAS . ?ABALLERO, complainant, vs. ATTY. "ARIO J. "ONTALVAN, respondent. DECISION TIN A, J.# Because of the credence &hich all civili<ed nations attach to the attestation and authentication of notaries to 213 facilitate commercial intercourse, faithful observance and utmost respect for its legal solemnities 2are3 sacrosanct and, failing therein, one must bear commensurate conseFuences.
2(3

On Januar! 1>, 1AA1, the Bar Confidant received a verified Complaint from /ouglas E. Maballero pra!ing for the disbarment of tt!. 4ario J. 4ontalvan, Botar! %ublic for the Cit! of OroFuieta, for alleged negligence and 203 incompetence in notari<ing documents. Complainant alleges that respondent notari<ed three (0) documents sometime from 1A?A to 1AA(, purportedl! e6ecuted, either as a vendor or a donor, b! complainantNs father 8ulalio Maballero. #hese documents are' a Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Donation of Land dated Bovember ;, 1A?A and notari<ed on Bovember 1=, 1A?A &ith Ouirino Maballero as donee: a Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Sale of Portion of Land dated October 1>, 1AA1 and notari<ed on June A, 1AA( in favor of $uis Maballero, as vendee: and a Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of Land dated "ebruar! (;, 1AA= notari<ed on "ebruar! (;, 1AA= &ith James Maballero, as vendee. Complainant faults respondent for notari<ing said documents despite the fact that the! &ere falsified. ccording to complainant, the residence certificates of

PALE cases

8ulalio Maballero &ere fa*e. )esidence Certificate Bo. 10AA71=1 dated pril 1?, 1A?A, &hich &as used in the Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Donation of Land dated Bovember ;, 1A?A, &as not personall! secured b! him. lso, the supposed date of issuance on "ebruar! ?,1AA= of )esidence Certificate Bo. 11;7?17? &hich &as used in the Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Sale of Portion of Land dated October 1>, 1AA1, &as a Saturda!. )esidence Certificate Bo. 11;7?17? issued on "ebruar! ?, 1A?A, used in the Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Donation of Land dated Bovember ;, 1A?A could not have been obtained b! complainantNs father because he &as then confined at the Cebu /octors Gospital, &here he sta!ed until "ebruar! 1=, 1A?A. #he complainant further asserts 8ulalio Maballero could not have appeared before respondent because he &as alread! ver! sic* and suffering from a serious e!e defect. 4ore significantl!, he died on 4a! 01, 1AA(: hence, he could not have appeared to ac*no&ledge the Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Sale of Portion of Land dated October 1>, 1AA1 on June A, 1AA(. "inall!, the defects and superimpositions are evident. In his Comment, respondent claims that he had nothing to do &ith the issuance of 8ulalio MaballeroNs residence certificate. #he personnel from the Cit! #reasurerNs Office are the ones tas*ed and responsible therefor. 4oreover, complainantNs mere allegation that 8ulalio Maballero did not personall! secure his residence certificates cannot overcome the presumption of regularit! of its issuance, respondent avers. ccording to respondent, 8ulalio Maballero, accompanied b! one &hom the respondent believed to be 8ulalioNs son, appeared before him onOctober 1>, 1AA1. 8ulalio sho&ed him a prepared document captioned Deed of Confirmation of Previous Verbal Sale of Land for notari<ation. Other than the space allotted for the residence certificate, the document &as complete. It &as dul! signed and ac*no&ledged b! 8ulalioNs to be his free and voluntar! act. Hhen respondent as*ed for 8ulalioNs residence certificate, he failed to present one. 8ulalio said that he &ould +ust go to the Cit! Gall and procure a residence certificate. Ge never returned. ppro6imatel! eight (?) months later, on June A, 1AA(, a representative of 8ulalio Maballero, accompanied b! one &hom respondent believed to be his son, appeared before him. #he! sho&ed respondent the document brought b! 8ulalio Maballero on October 1>, 1AA1, still unnotari<ed. Pno&ing that it &as the same document, respondent notari<ed it. Bo one informed respondent that 8ulalio Maballero had alread! passed a&a!. Other&ise,

respondent alleges, he &ould not have notari<ed the sub+ect document. )espondent e6presses deep regrets and sadness about the incident. Claiming that he &as misled, he stresses that 8ulalio Maballero ac*no&ledged his signature and voluntaril! e6ecuted the document on October 1>, 1AA1, but it &as not notari<ed on said date because he did not have his residence certificate. See*ing compassion and understanding for his conduct, respondent blames it on his alleged bus! &or*load as he notari<ed t&ent!.three ((0) other documents on that da!. On 4a! (A, 1AA1, the Court issued a resolution referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines (IB%) for investigation, report, and recommendation &ithin ninet! (A=) da!s from notice. fter eight (?) !ears and a series of resolutions from the Court addressed to the IB%, the last of &hich is dated Jul! A, (==0, the latter finall! submitted its report on Jul! (7, (==0. IB% Investigating Commissioner 4anuel . #iuseco (#iuseco) found that respondent failed to compl! &ith his calling as a la&!er and a notar! public and recommended that he be suspended for a period of three months. On June (1, (==0, the IB% Board of Eovernors adopted and approved the )eport and )ecommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, but modified the recommended penalt!, as follo&s' 2H3ith modification as to penalt! to conform to evidence, and considering that the respondent has not been true to his calling as a la&!er and notar! public b! ta*ing lightl! his dut! and obligation in giving effect to public documents that need2s3 his participation as notar! public thereb! causing harm and in+ur! to complainant, tt!. 4ario J. 4ontalvanNs Commission as Botar! %ublic is hereb! )8DOP8/ and he is hereb! /ISO@ $I"I8/ from being appointed as Botar! %ublic for t&o (() !ears from receipt of 273 notice. s culled from the evidence, 8ulalio Maballero died on 4a! 01, 1AA(. Go&ever, respondent notari<ed the document in Fuestion &hich purportedl! contains the signature of 8ulalio Maballero on June A, 1AA(, or a little more than a &ee* after his death. %art of the document is a notarial ac*no&ledgment &here respondent declared that 8ulalio Maballero appeared before him and ac*no&ledged that the instrument &as his free and voluntar! act, but the fact &as that he &as alread! dead at that time. Clearl!, respondent Qmade an untruthful statement, thus violating )ule 1=.=1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! and his oath as a la&!er, &hich unconditionall! reFuires him not to

PALE cases

do or declare an! falsehood.R

213

Botari<ation is not an empt!, meaningless and routine act. It is invested &ith such substantial public interest, that onl! those &ho are Fualified or authori<ed ma! act as notaries public. Botari<ation of a private document converts the document into a public one, ma*ing it admissible in 2;3 court &ithout further proof of its authenticit!. Indeed, it 2>3 creates real rights. Botaries public, therefore, should not authenticate documents unless the persons &ho signed thereon are the ver! same persons &ho e6ecuted and personall! appeared before them to attest to the contents and truth of &hat are 2?3 stated therein. Botaries public must observe &ith utmost fidelit! the basic reFuirements in the performance of their duties. Other&ise, the confidence of the public in the integrit! of notari<ed deeds &ould be undermined. )espondentNs rationali<ation of the events surrounding the notari<ation of the Deed Confirming a Previous Verbal Sale of Portion of Landdated October 1>, 1AA1 is preposterous. Horse, it reflects his utter disregard of his duties, as a notar! public, to compl! &ith the reFuired legal formalities in the e6ecution of documents. )espondent &as initiall! as*ed to notari<e the sub+ect document on October 1>, 1AA1. Ge alleged that the act &as not completed for failure of 8ulalio Maballero to present his residence certificate. 8ight (?) months after, the same document &as presented to him, this time &ithout 8ulalio Maballero. #he circumstances should have put him on guard. Deril!, the fact that 8ulalio Maballero previousl! appeared before him in person does not +ustif!, for instead it should have deterred him from proceeding &ith, the notari<ation of the document in Fuestion. Horse, apart from resorting to prevarications respondent &as inconsistent &ith himself. In the notarial ac*no&ledgment, he attested that the part! to the deed appeared before him on June A, 1AA( &hich is the date of 2A3 ac*no&ledgment. In his comment, he stated that the part! appeared before him on a different date, October 1>, 1AA1, &hich is the date of the document. Of course, the part! could not have appeared before him onJune A, 1AA( because the part! died on 4a! 01, 1AA(. )espondent, ho&ever, cannot be put to tas* for the alleged use of fa*e residence certificates and forged signatures. #he records and the evidence adduced at the hearing simpl! do not bear out the charge. #he remorseful attitude of respondent and his claim that he is a &heelchair.bound invalid and depends solel! on 21=3 notarial service for his income, though deserving of

commiseration, are of no conseFuence. Still and all, the IB%Ns recommendation to revo*e respondentNs notarial commission and disFualif! him from securing the same commission for t&o (() !ears, if heeded, &ould not suffice to punish respondent for his offense. In the case of Ocampo 2113 v. rreverre, &here a similarl! contrite respondent &as found guilt! of breach of the notarial la& for notari<ing a document in the absence of the part!.signator!, the Court did not onl! revo*e his notarial commission and disFualif! him from being so commissioned for a period of t&o (() !ears, but also suspended him from the practice of la& for a period of si6 (;) months. 56EREFORE, in vie& of the foregoing, the notarial commission of respondent tt!. 4ario J. 4ontalvan, if still e6isting, is )8DOP8/ and he is /ISO@ $I"I8/ from being commissioned as notar! public for a period of t&o (() !ears. Ge is also S@S%8B/8/ from the practice of la& for si6 (;) months effective immediatel!, &ith a H )BIBE that the repetition of a similar violation &ill be dealt &ith even more severel!. Ge is further /I)8C#8/ to report the date of his receipt of this /ecision to the Court &ithin five (1) da!s from such receipt. $et a cop! of this decision be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines, and the Court dministrator for circulation to all courts in the countr!. SO ORDERED.

"I)S# /IDISIOB A.C. No. 565> F*$r0%r4 27, 2006

JO6N SIY LI", Complainant, vs. ATTY. CAR"ELITO A. "ONTANO, )espondent. /8CISIOB CALLEJO, SR., J.: tt!. Carmelito . 4ontano stands charged &ith gross misconduct relative to his filing of Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(? entitled Spouses #omas See #ua<on and Batividad See /eecho v. John Si! $im and the )egister of /eeds of 1 Caloocan Cit!. It appears that complainant John Si! $im &as the defendant in Civil Case Bo. C.1717( for reformation of contract,

PALE cases

Fuieting of title, &ith damages, then pending before the )egional #rial Court ()#C) of Caloocan Cit!, Branch ( 101. #he sub+ect of the dispute &as a ;1=.sFuare meter con+ugal lot along . del 4undo Street, >th venue, Caloocan Cit! covered b! #ransfer Certificate of #itle (#C#) Bo. ?;=. fter trial, the )#C ruled in favor of defendant (complainant herein), and declared that the deed of sale the parties e6ecuted on Jul! 11, 1A?> &as an absolute and unconditional conve!ance of sub+ect propert! b! the plaintiff in favor of such defendant. On motion for reconsideration, ho&ever, the trial court reversed itself and declared that the sale &as in fact an eFuitable mortgage. It thus ordered the cancellation of #C# Bo. 11(;(1 and the reinstatement of the previous title on the sub+ect propert!. #he complainant appealed the case to the Court of ppeals, doc*eted as C .E.). CD Bo. 7=1;>. In its /ecision dated 4arch 01, 1AA1, the appellate court reversed the ruling of the )#C, to &it' HG8)8"O)8, the appealed Order dated Bovember 1;, 1AA(, is hereb! )8D8)S8/ and S8# SI/8, and the original /ecision of the trial court, dated /ecember (, 1AA1, hereb! )8IBS# #8/, &ith the modification that plaintiff.appellee is ordered to pa! defendant.appellant the sum of "ive #housand (%1,===.==) %esos a month as reasonable rental for the use and occupation of partment Bo. 1;1 from Jul! 11, 1A?? until the premises shall have been vacated and possession thereof peacefull! turned over to defendant. appellant. #he counterclaim for attorne!Ns fees of defendant.appellant is /8BI8/. #here is no clear sho&ing that the action ta*en b! plaintiff.appellee &as done in bad faith. #here should be 0 no penalt! on the right to litigate. #he aggrieved part! elevated the matter to this Court, and the petition &as doc*eted as E.). Bo. 11A>A7. On October 0, (===, the Court affirmed the ruling of the C and denied 7 the petition. 8ntr! of +udgment &as made of record on 1 October 0, (===. On Januar! 7, (==(, respondent filed a Botice of ; ppearance as counsel of #omas See #ua<on (the losing part!) in the )#C of Caloocan Cit!, Branch 101 in Civil Case Bo. C.1717(. On Januar! >, (==(, he filed, in behalf of his client, a 94otion to Compl! to 2sic3 /ecision &ithout > Hrit,9 &orded as follo&s' 1. %laintiff is a&are that pursuant to the decision of the court, as affirmed b! the Court of ppeals and the Supreme Court, the decision on the present

case had alread! become final and e6ecutor!. (. In order to avoid undue inconvenience on the part of herein defendant, plaintiff shall voluntaril! settle the mone! +udgment as stated in the decision sought to be enforced. 0. #he plaintiff &ill be filing 8ight Gundred #en #housand (%?1=,===.==) %esos, eFuivalent to 1;( months of rent as per decision and the same to be covered b! supersedeas bond issued b! a reliable insurance compan! to ans&er for said obligation. 7. 8ver! month starting "ebruar! 11, (==(, plaintiff shall deposit to the court the amount of %1,===.== ? as monthl! rent. On the same date, respondent, in behalf of his clients (the A spouses #omas See #ua<on) filed the Complaint for nullit! of #C# and other documents, reconve!ance, maintenance of ph!sical possession before the )#C of Caloocan Cit!, eventuall! raffled to Branch 1(1 thereof (Civil Case Bo. C. 1AA(?). 4eantime, on "ebruar! 1A, (==(, Judge $uisito C. Sardillo of 1= 11 Branch 1(; issued an Order in Civil Case Bo. C.1717( granting the 4otion for 86ecution &ith 4anifestation earlier filed b! the prevailing part! (complainant herein), and den!ing for lac* of merit, the 94otion to Compl! to 2sic3 /ecision &ithout Hrit9 filed b! respondent counsel. #his prompted the complainant to file the instant complaint for disbarment against respondent. In his Complaint. 1( ffidavit dated 4arch (=, (==(, complainant alleged that respondent filed the complaint in Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(? out of malice, pointing out that it involves 9the same parties, the same causes of action and relief pra!ed for as that of Civil Case Bo. C.1717(.9 #hus, the complainant pra!ed that the respondent be 9disbarred and-or suspended from the practice of la& for his gross misconduct,9 on the follo&ing allegation' ;. 8videntl!, I have been sub+ected to harassment b! the antics of the respondent in filing a rec!cled case doc*eted as Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(? on Januar! =>, (==(. )espondent is guilt! in abetting the conduct of his clients, Sps. #ua<on. Ge has clearl! violated his la&!erNs oath not to promote or sue groundless, false or unla&ful suits among others. Instead of counseling his clients to abide and obe! the decision of our Supreme Court, the final arbiter of all controversies and disputes, he is sho&ing disrespect to a final and e6ecutor! 10 decision of our court.

PALE cases

10

In his Comment, respondent denied the allegations against him. Hhile he admitted that he filed Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(? as counsel for the plaintiff therein, he claimed that it &as not filed &ith malicious intent. 4oreover, &hile the ne& case involved the same part!, it &as for a different cause of action and relief, and, as such, the principle of res +udicata did not appl!. Ge further e6plained that the complaint in Civil Case Bo. C.1717( &as for declarator! relief or reformation of instrument, &hile Civil Case Bo. 1AA(? &as for annulment of title. Ge accepted the case based on 9his professional appreciation that his client had a good case.9 In his )epl!, the complainant stressed that the respondent &as guilt! of forum shopping: Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(? &as nothing but a revival of the old complaint: and 9the lame e6cuse of the respondent that the present case is an action in rem &hile the other case is an action in personam9 did not merit consideration. On Bovember (1, (==(, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines (IB%) for 1; investigation, report and recommendation. On September 1, (==0, the IB% Commission on Bar /iscipline assigned the case to Commissioner Salvador $. %ea. Onl! the counsel for the respondent appeared at the mandator! conference held on September 0=, (==0. "inding that there &ere no factual issues in the case, Commissioner %ea terminated the mandator! conference and ordered the parties to submit their respective verified %osition %apers, and, thereafter, considered the case submitted for resolution. #he case &as re.assigned to Commissioner /oroteo B. guila &ho submitted his )eport and )ecommendation dated 4a! A, (==1, finding the respondent guilt! of misconduct. It &as recommended that respondent be meted a t&o monthsN suspension from the practice of la&. ccording to the Investigating Commissioner, the elements of res +udicata are present in this case as to bar the filing of Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(? since (a) the +udgment in Civil Case Bo. C.1717(, upholding the validit! of the absolute deed of sale, had attained finalit!: (b) the court &hich rendered the decision had the reFuired +urisdiction: and (c) the disposition of the case &as a +udgment on the merits. On October ((, (==1, the Board of Eovernors of the IB% Commission on Bar /iscipline issued )esolution Bo. CDII. (==1.1=?, adopting said )eport and )ecommendation &ith the modification that respondent be suspended from the practice of la& for si6 (;) months.
11

17

He agree that respondent is administrativel! liable.lavvp!" #.net In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilt! of forum shopping. B! his o&n admission, he &as a&are that Civil Case Bo. C.1717( &as alread! final and e6ecutor! &hen he filed the second case (Civil Case Bo. C.1AA(?). Gis allegation that he 9&as not the original counsel of his clients9 and that 9&hen he filed the subseFuent case for nullit! of #C#, his motive &as to protect the rights of his clients &hom he believed &ere not properl! addressed in the prior case for reformation and Fuieting of title,9 deserves scant consideration. s a responsible member of the bar, he should have e6plained the effect of such final and e6ecutor! decision on his clientsN rights, instead of encouraging them to file another case involving the same propert! and asserting the same rights. #he essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneousl! or successivel!, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable +udgment. It e6ists &hen, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a part! see*s a favorable opinion in another, or &hen he institutes t&o or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. n important factor in determining its e6istence is the ve6ation caused to the courts and the parties.litigants b! the filing of 1> similar cases to claim substantiall! the same reliefs. "orum shopping e6ists &here the elements of litis pendentia are present or &here a final +udgment in one case &ill amount 1? to res +udicata in another. #hus, the follo&ing reFuisites should concur' (a) identit! of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identit! of rights asserted and relief pra!ed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identit! of the t&o preceding particulars is such that an! +udgment rendered in the other action &ill, regardless of &hich part! is successful, amount 1A to res +udicata in the action under consideration. 6 6 6 #he fact that the parties in the first and second cases are not identical &ill not prevent the application of the principle of res +udicata. 4ere substantial identit! of parties, or a communit! of interests bet&een a part! in the first case and a part! in the subseFuent case, even if the latter &as not (= impleaded in the first case, is sufficient. 4oreover, a part! cannot, b! var!ing the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be t&ice litigated bet&een the same parties or their

PALE cases

11

privies. #his &as &hat respondent resorted to in order to give some semblance of merit to the complaint for annulment of title. Ge should have reali<ed that the ruling of (( the Court in #ua<on v. Court of ppeals effectivel! determined &ith finalit! the rights and obligations of the parties under the Fuestioned deed of sale. la&!er o&es fidelit! to the cause of his client but not at (0 the e6pense of truth and the administration of +ustice. #he filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the CourtNs processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of +ustice and &ill be punished as contempt of court. Beedless to state, the la&!er &ho files such multiple or repetitious petitions (&hich obviousl! dela!s the e6ecution of a final and e6ecutor! +udgment) sub+ects himself to disciplinar! action for incompetence (for not *no&ing an! better) or for &illful violation of his duties as an attorne! to act &ith all good fidelit! to the courts, and to maintain onl! such actions as appear to him to be +ust and are consistent &ith truth and (7 honor. #he filing of another action concerning the same sub+ect matter, in violation of the doctrine of res +udicata, runs contrar! to Canon 1( of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!, &hich reFuires a la&!er to e6ert ever! effort and consider it his dut! to assist in the speed! and efficient administration of +ustice. B! his actuations, respondent also (1 (; violated )ule 1(.=( and )ule 1(.=7 of the Code, as &ell as a la&!erNs mandate 9to dela! no man for mone! or (> malice.9 $a&!ers should be reminded that their primar! dut! is to assist the courts in the administration of +ustice. n! conduct &hich tends to dela!, impede or obstruct the administration of +ustice contravenes such la&!erNs dut!. Indeed, the Court has time and again &arned not to resort to forum shopping for this practice clogs the court (? doc*ets. Hhile &e rule that the respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, &e also note that the po&er to disbar should be e6ercised &ith great caution, to be imposed onl! in a clear case of misconduct that seriousl! affects the standing and character of the la&!er as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. /isbarment should never be decreed (A &here an! lesser penalt! could accomplish the end desired. HG8)8"O)8, for violating Canon 1( of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!, respondent tt!. Carmelito . 4ontano is S@S%8B/8/ from the practice of la& for a period of si6 (;) months. Ge is S#8)B$L H )B8/ that an!

(1

future violation of his duties as a la&!er &ill be dealt &ith more severel!. #his /ecision is immediatel! e6ecutor!. tt!. 4ontano is /I)8C#8/ to inform the Court of the date of receipt of this decision. SO O)/8)8/. A.C. No. 6057 J0-* 27, 2006

!ETER T. DONTON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. E""AN7EL O. TANSIN CO, )espondent. /8CISIOB CAR!IO, J.: T)* C%,* #his is a disbarment complaint against respondent tt!. 8mmanuel O. #ansingco (9respondent9) for serious 1 misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, )ules ( 0 1.=1 and 1.=( of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! (9Code9). T)* F%&/, In his Complaint dated (= 4a! (==0, %eter #. /onton (9complainant9) stated that he filed a criminal complaint for 7 estafa thru falsification of a public document against /uane O. Stier (9Stier9), 8mel!n . 4agga! (94agga!9) and respondent, as the notar! public &ho notari<ed the Occupanc! greement. #he disbarment complaint arose &hen respondent filed a 1 counter.charge for per+ur! against complainant. )espondent, in his affidavit.complaint, stated that' 1. #he OCC@% BCL E)8848B# dated September 11, 1AA1 2%, pr*p%r*+ %-+ -o/%ri@*+ $4 (* 0-+*r /)* .ollo2i-3 &ir&0(,/%-&*,# . 4r. /uane O. Stier is the o&ner and long.time resident of a real propert! located at Bo. 00 /on Jose Street, Bg!. San )oFue, 4urph!, Cubao, Oue<on Cit!. B. Sometime in September 1AA1, "r. S/i*r A % 7.S. &i/i@*%-+ /)*r*$4 +i,B0%li.i*+ /o o2-

PALE cases

12

r*%l prop*r/4 i- )i, -%(* 5 agreed that the propert! be transferred in the name of 4r. /onton, a "ilipino. C. 4r. Stier, in the presence of 4r. /onton, reFuested me to prepare several documents that &ould guarantee recognition of him being the actual o&ner of the propert! despite the transfer of title in the name of 4r. /onton. /. "or this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCC@% BCL E)8848B#, recogni<ing 4r. StierNs free and undisturbed use of the propert! for his residence and business operations. #he OCC@% BCL E)8848B# &as tied up &ith a loan &hich 4r. Stier ; had e6tended to 4r. /onton. Complainant averred that respondentNs act of preparing the Occupanc! greement, despite *no&ledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disFualified to o&n real propert! in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant pra!ed that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation of la& and assisting Stier in carr!ing out a dishonest scheme. In his Comment dated 1A ugust (==0, respondent claimed that complainant filed the disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainantNs counsel, tt!. > Bonifacio . lenta+an, because respondent refused to act as complainantNs &itness in the criminal case against Stier and 4agga!. )espondent admitted that he 9prepared and notari<ed9 the Occupanc! greement and asserted its genuineness and due e6ecution. In a )esolution dated 1 October (==0, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines (IB%) for investigation, report and recommendation. T)* IB!C, R*por/ %-+ R*&o((*-+%/ioIn her )eport dated (; "ebruar! (==7 (9)eport9), Commissioner 4ilagros D. San Juan (9Commissioner San Juan9) of the IB% Commission on Bar /iscipline found respondent liable for ta*ing part in a 9scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against foreign o&nership of land in the %hilippines.9 Commissioner San Juan

recommended respondentNs suspension from the practice of la& for t&o !ears and the cancellation of his commission as Botar! %ublic. In )esolution Bo. CDI.(==7.((( dated 1; pril (==7, the IB% Board of Eovernors adopted, &ith modification, the )eport and recommended respondentNs suspension from the practice of la& for si6 months. On (? June (==7, the IB% Board of Eovernors for&arded the )eport to the Court as provided under Section 1((b), )ule ? 10A.B of the )ules of Court. On (? Jul! (==7, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the IB%. )espondent stated that he &as alread! >; !ears old and &ould alread! retire b! (==1 after the termination of his pending cases. Ge also said that his practice of la& is his onl! means of support for his famil! and his si6 minor children. In a )esolution dated > October (==7, the IB% denied the motion for reconsideration because the IB% had no more +urisdiction on the case as the matter had alread! been referred to the Court. T)* R0li-3 o. /)* Co0r/ #he Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and )ule 1.=( of the Code. la&!er should not render an! service or give advice to an! client &hich &ill involve defiance of the la&s &hich he is A bound to uphold and obe!. la&!er &ho assists a client in a dishonest scheme or &ho connives in violating the la& commits an act &hich +ustifies disciplinar! action against the 1= la&!er. B! his o&n admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a @.S. 11 citi<en, &as disFualified from o&ning real propert!. Let, in 1( his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of o&nership to the parcel of land to Stier. )espondent, ho&ever, a&are of the prohibition, Fuic*l! rectified his act and transferred the title in complainantNs name. But respondent provided 9some 10 safeguards9 b! preparing several documents, including the Occupanc! greement, that &ould guarantee StierNs recognition as the actual o&ner of the propert! despite its transfer in complainantNs name. In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional 17 prohibition against foreign o&nership of lands b! preparing said documents.

PALE cases

13

)espondent had s&orn to uphold the Constitution. #hus, he violated his oath and the Code &hen he prepared and notari<ed the Occupanc! greement to evade the la& against foreign o&nership of lands. )espondent used his *no&ledge of the la& to achieve an unla&ful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for &hich he ma! 11 be suspended. In Balinon v. De Leon, respondent
1;

tt!. /e $eon &as

suspended from the practice of la& for three !ears for preparing an affidavit that virtuall! permitted him to commit 1> concubinage. In In re: Santiago, respondent tt!. Santiago &as suspended from the practice of la& for one !ear for preparing a contract &hich declared the spouses to be single again after nine !ears of separation and allo&ed them to contract separatel! subseFuent marriages. 56EREFORE, &e find respondent #ansingco tt!. 8mmanuel O.

7ILTY of violation of Canon 1 and )ule 1.=( of

the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. ccordingl!, &e S7S!END respondent tt!. 8mmanuel O. #ansingco from the practice of la& for SID "ONT6S effective upon finalit! of this /ecision. $et copies of this /ecision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondentNs personal record as an attorne!, the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines, the /epartment of Justice, and all courts in the countr! for their information and guidance. SO ORDERED. 8B B BC A.C. No. 6707 "%r&) 2;, 2006

ISELA 67YSSEN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. 7TIERRE?, )espondent.

merican citi<ens, applied for %hilippine Disas under Section 102g3 of the Immigration $a&. )espondent told complainant that in order that their visa applications &ill be favorabl! acted upon b! the BI/ the! needed to deposit a certain sum of mone! for a period of one !ear &hich could be &ithdra&n after one !ear. Believing that the deposit &as indeed reFuired b! la&, complainant deposited &ith respondent on si6 different occasions from pril 1AA1 to pril 1AA; the total amount of @SS(=,===. )espondent prepared receipts-vouchers as proofs that he received the amounts deposited b! the complainant but refused to give her copies of official receipts despite her demands. fter one !ear, complainant demanded from respondent the return of @SS(=,=== &ho assured her that said amount &ould be returned. Hhen respondent failed to return the sum deposited, the Horld 4ission for Jesus (of &hich complainant &as a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the immediate return of the mone!. In a letter dated 1 4arch 1AAA, respondent promised to release the amount not later than A 4arch 1AAA. "ailing to compl! &ith his promise, the Horld 4ission for Jesus sent another demand letter. In response thereto, respondent sent complainant a letter dated 1A 4arch 1AAA e6plaining the alleged reasons for the dela! in the release of deposited amount. Ge enclosed t&o blan* chec*s postdated to ; pril and (= pril 1AAA and authori<ed complainant to fill in the amounts. Hhen complainant deposited the postdated chec*s on their due dates, the same &ere dishonored because respondent had stopped pa!ment on the same. #hereafter, respondent, in his letter to complainant dated (1 pril 1AAA, e6plained the reasons for stopping pa!ment on the chec*s, and gave complainant five postdated chec*s &ith the assurance that said chec*s &ould be honored. Complainant deposited the five postdated chec*s on their due dates but the! &ere all dishonored for having been dra&n against insufficient funds or pa!ment thereon &as ordered stopped b! respondent. fter respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return the deposited amount, complainant referred the matter to a la&!er &ho sent t&o demand letters to respondent. #he demand letters remained unheeded. #hus, a complaint for disbarment &as filed b! complainant in the Commission on Bar /iscipline of the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines (IB%). On 11 Bovember (===, Dictor C. "ernande<, /irector for Bar 0 /iscipline, reFuired respondent to submit his ans&er &ithin 11 da!s from receipt thereof. In his Counter. ffidavit dated ( Jul! (==1, respondent denied the allegations in the complaint claiming that having
7 (

/8CISIOB !ER C7RIA"# #his treats of a Complaint for /isbarment filed b! Eisela Gu!ssen against respondent tt!. "red $. Eutierre<. Complainant alleged that in 1AA1, &hile respondent &as still connected &ith the Bureau of Immigration and /eportation (BI/), she and her three sons, &ho are all
1

PALE cases

14

never ph!sicall! received the mone! mentioned in the complaint, he could not have appropriated or poc*eted the same. Ge said the amount &as used as pa!ment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the %hilippines. )espondent e6plained thus' a) #hrough a close.friend, Jovie Ealaraga, a %astor and li*e&ise a friend of the complainant, the latter &as introduced to me at m! office at the Bureau of Immigration &ith a big problem concerning their sta! in the %hilippines, herself and three sons, one of &hich is alread! of ma+or age &hile the t&o others &ere still minors then. #heir problem &as the fact that since the! have been sta!ing in the %hilippines for almost ten (1=) !ears as holders of missionar! visas (AE) the! could no longer e6tend their said status as under the la& and related polic2i3es of the government, missionar! visa holders could onl! remain as such for ten (1=) !ears after &hich the! could no longer e6tend their said status and have to leave the countr!. b) Stud!ing their case and being @.S. Citi<en (sic), I advised them that the! better secure a permanent visa under Section 0 of the %hilippine Immigration $a& other&ise *no&n as Ouota Disa and thereafter, provided them &ith list of the reFuirements in obtaining the said visa, one of &hich is that the applicant must have a S7=,=== deposited in the ban*. I also inform that her son 4arcus Gu!ssen, &ho &as alread! of ma+or age, has to have the same amount of sho& mone! separate of her mone! as he &ould be issued separate visa, &hile her t&o minor children &ould be included as her dependents in her said visa application. I advised them to get a la&!er (sic), complainant further reFuested me to refer to her to a la&!er to &or* for their application, &hich I did and contacted the late tt!. 4endo<a, an Immigration la&!er, to do the +ob for the complainant and her famil!. c) #he application &as filed, processed and follo&ed.up b! the said tt!. 4endo<a until the same &as finished and the corresponding permanent visa &ere obtained b! the complainant and her famil!. Ger son 4arcus Gu!ssen &as given an independent permanent visa &hile the other t&o &ere made as dependents of the complainant. In bet&een the processing of the papers and becoming ver! close to the complainant, I became the intermediar! bet&een complainant and their counsel so much that ever! amount that the latter

&ould reFuest for &hatever purpose &as coursed through me &hich reFuest &ere then transmitted to the complainant and ever! amount of mone! given b! the complainant to their counsel &ere coursed thru me &hich is the ver! reason &h! m! signature appears in the vouchers attached in the complaint.affidavit: d) #hat as time goes b!, I noticed that the amount appeared to be huge for services of a la&!er that I m!self began to &onder &h! and, to satisf! m! curiosit!, I met tt!. 4endo<a and inFuired from him regarding the matter and the follo&ing facts &ere revealed to me' 1) #hat &hat &as used b! the complainant as her sho& mone! from the ban* is not reall! her mone! but mone! of Horld 4ission for Jesus, &hich therefore is a serious violation of the Immigration $a& as there &as a misrepresentation. #his fact &as confirmed later &hen the said entit! sent their demand letter to the undersigned affiant and &hich is attached to the complaint.affidavit: () #hat &orst, the same amount used b! the complainant, &as the ver! same amount used b! her son 4arcus Gu!ssen, in obtaining his separate permanent visa. #hese acts of the complainant and her son could have been a ground for deportation and li*e&ise constitute criminal offense under the Immigration $a& and the )evised %enal Code. #hese could have been the possible reason &h! complainant &as made to pa! for Fuite huge amount. e) #hat after the! have secured their visas, complainant and her famil! became ver! close to undersigned and m! famil! that I &as even invited to their residence several times: f) Go&ever after three !ears, complainant demanded the return of their mone! given and surprisingl! the! &ant to recover the same from me. B! t&ist of fate, tt!. 4endo<a is no longer around, he died sometime 1AA>: g) #hat it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is no& being hidden and that the amount of mone! is no& being sought to be recovered from

PALE cases

15

me: h) #hat the fact is I signed the vouchers and being a la&!er I *no& the conseFuences of having signed the same and therefore I had to ans&er for it and pa!. I tried to raised the fund needed but up to the present m! standb! loan application has not been released and &as informed that the same &ould onl! be forthcoming second &ee* of ugust. #he same should have been released last 4arch but &as aborted due to prevalent condition. #he amount to be paid, according to the complainant has no& become doubled plus attorne!Ns fees of %(==,===.==. Complainant submitted her evidence on 7 September (==( and pril (==0, and filed her "ormal Offer of 8vidence on (1 ugust (==0. On several occasions, the complaint &as set for reception of respondentNs evidence but the scheduled hearings (11 settings) &ere all reset at the instance of the respondent &ho &as allegedl! out of the countr! to attend to his clientNs needs. )eception of respondentNs evidence &as scheduled for the last time on (? September (==7 and again respondent failed to appear, despite due notice and &ithout +ust cause. On 1 Bovember (==7, Investigating Commissioner 4ilagros 1 D. San Juan submitted her report recommending the disbarment of respondent. She +ustified her recommendation in this manner' t the outset it should be noted that there is no Fuestion that respondent received the amount of @SS(=,=== from complainant, as respondent himself admitted that he signed the vouchers ( nne6es to " of complainant) sho&ing his receipt of said amount from complainant. )espondent ho&ever claims that he did not appropriate the same for himself but that he delivered the said amount to a certain tt!. 4endo<a. #his defense raised b! respondent is untenable considering the documentar! evidence submitted b! complainant. On record is the 1 4arch 1AAA letter of respondent addressed to the Horld 4ission for Jesus ( nne6 G of Complaint) &here he stated thus' 9I reall! understand !our feelings on the dela! of the release of the deposit but I repeat, nobod! reall! intended that the thing &ould happen that &a!. 4an! events &ere the causes of the said dela! particularl! the death of then Commissioner $. Derceles, &hose sudden death prevented us the needed papers for the immediate release. It &as onl!

from compiling all on the first &ee* of Januar! this !ear, that all the said papers &ere recovered, hence, the process of the release +ust started though some important papers &ere alread! finished as earl! as the last Fuarter of last !ear. He are +ust going through the normal standard operating procedure and there is no da! since Januar! that I do not ma*e an! follo& 5 ups on the progress of the same.9 and his letter dated 1A 4arch 1AAA ( nne6 $ of Complaint) &here he stated thus' 9I am sending !ou m! personal chec*s to cover the refund of the amount deposited b! !our good self in connection &ith the procurement of !our permanent visa and that of !our famil!. It might ta*e some more time before the Bureau could release the refund as some other pertinent papers are being still compiled are being loo*ed at the files of the late Commissioner Derceles, &ho approved !our visa and &ho died of heart attac*. n!&a!, I am sure that ever!thing &ould be fine later as all the documents needed are alread! intact. #his is +ust a bureaucratic dela!.9 "rom the above letters, respondent ma*es it appear that the @SS(=,=== &as officiall! deposited &ith the Bureau of Immigration and /eportation. Go&ever, if this is true, ho& come onl! %ett! Cash Douchers &ere issued b! respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said sum and official receipts therefore &ere never issued b! the said BureauT lso, &h! &ould respondent issue his personal chec*s to cover the return of the mone! to complainant if said amount &as reall! officiall! deposited &ith the Bureau of ImmigrationT ll these actions of respondent point to the inescapable conclusion that respondent received the mone! from complainant and appropriated the same for his personal use. It should also be noted that respondent has failed to establish that the 9late tt!. 4endo<a9 referred to in his Counter. ffidavit reall! e6ists. #here is not one correspondence from tt!. 4endo<a regarding the visa application of complainant and his famil!, and complainant has also testified that she never met this tt!. 4endo<a referred to b! respondent. Considering that respondent &as able to perpetrate the fraud b! ta*ing advantage of his position &ith the Board of Special InFuir! of the Bureau of Immigration and /eportation, ma*es it more reprehensible as it has caused damage to the reputation and integrit! of said office. It is submitted that respondent has violated )ule ;.=( of Canon ; of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! &hich reads' 9 la&!er in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor

PALE cases

16

allo& the latter to interfere &ith his public duties.9 On 7 Bovember (==7, the IB% Board of Eovernors ; approved the Investigating CommissionerNs report &ith modification, thus' )8SO$D8/ to /O%# and %%)OD8, as it hereb! /O%#8/ and %%)OD8/, &ith modification, the )eport and )ecommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above.entitled case, herein made part of this )esolution as nne6 9 9: and, finding the recommendation full! supported b! the evidence on record and applicable la&s and rules, and considering respondentNs violation of )ule ;.=( of Canon ; of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!, tt!. "red $. Eutierre< is hereb! /ISB ))8/ from the practice of la& and ordered to return the amount &ith legal interest from receipt of the mone! until pa!ment. #his case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for prosecution for violation of nti.Eraft and Corrupt %ractices cts and to the /epartment of Justice for appropriate administrative action. He agree &ith the IB% Board of Eovernors that respondent should be severel! sanctioned. He begin &ith the veritable fact that la&!ers in government service in the discharge of their official tas* have more restrictions than la&!ers in private practice. Hant of moral integrit! is to be more severel! condemned in a la&!er &ho > holds a responsible public office. It is undisputed that respondent admitted having received the @SS(=,=== from complainant as sho&n b! his A 1= signatures in the pett! cash vouchers and receipts he prepared, on the false representation that that it &as needed in complainantNs application for visa &ith the BI/. )espondent denied he misappropriated the said amount and interposed the defense that he delivered it to a certain tt!. 4endo<a &ho assisted complainant and children in 11 their application for visa in the BI/. Such defense remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the matter. Hhile he claims that tt!. 4endo<a alread! died, he did not present the death certificate of said tt!. 4endo<a. Horse, the action of respondent in shifting the blame to someone &ho has been naturall! silenced b! fate, is not onl! impudent but do&nright ignominious. Hhen the integrit! of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he den! the charges against him: he must meet the issue and 1( overcome the evidence against him. Ge must sho& proof that he still maintains that degree of moralit! and integrit! &hich at all times is e6pected of him. In the case at bar, respondent clearl! fell short of his dut!. )ecords sho& that
?

even though he &as given the opportunit! to ans&er the charges and controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation, he failed, &ithout an! plausible reason, to appear several times &henever the case &as set for reception of his evidence despite due notice. #he defense of denial proferred b! respondent is, thus, not convincing. It is settled that denial is inherentl! a &ea* defense. #o be believed, it must be buttressed b! a strong evidence of non.culpabilit!: other&ise, such denial is purel! self.serving and is &ith nil evidentiar! value. Hhen respondent issued the postdated chec*s as his moral obligation, he indirectl! admitted the charge. Such admissions &ere also apparent in the follo&ing letters of respondent to complainant' 1) $etter dated =1 4arch 1AA(, pertinent portion of &hich reads' Be that as it ma!, ma! I assure !ou for the last time that the said deposit is forthcoming, the latest of &hich is =A 4arch 1AAA. Should it not be released on said date, I understand to pa! the same to !ou out of m! personal mone! on said date. Bo more reasons and no more alibis. Send somebod! here at the office on that da! and the amount &ould be given to !ou &ether (sic) from the Bureau or from m! o&n personal mone!. () $etter dated 1A 4arch 1AAA, reads in part' I am sending !ou m! personal chec*s to cover the refund of the amount deposited b! !our goodself in connection &ith the procurement of !our permanent visa and that of !our famil!. It might ta*e some more time before the Bureau could release the refund as some other pertinent papers are still being compiled and are being loo*ed at the files of the late Commissioner Derceles, &ho approved !our visa and &ho died of heart attac*. n!&a!, I am sure that ever!thing &ould be fine later as all the documents needed are alread! intact. #his is +ust a bureaucratic dela!. 6666 s !ou &ould see, I have to pa! !ou in peso. I have issued !ou ( chec*s, one dated pril ;, 1AAA and the other one dated pril (=, 1AAA. I leave the amount vacant because I &ould &ant !ou to fill them up on their due dates the peso eFuivalent to S1=,=== respectivel!. #his is to be sure that the peso eFuivalent of !our %(=,=== &ould be &ell e6changed. I
17 10

PALE cases

17

have postdated them to enable me to raise some more pesos to cover the &hole amount but donNt &orr! as the $ord had alread! provided me the means. 0) $etter dated (1 pril 1AAA provides' n!&a!, let me apologi<e for all these troubles. Lou are a&are that I have done m! ver! best for the earl! return of !our mone! but the return is becoming blea* as I &as informed that there are still papers lac*ing. Hhen I stopped the pa!ment of the chec*s I issued, I &as of the impression that ever!thing is fine, but it is not. I guess it is time for me to accept the fact that I reall! have to personall! return the mone! out of m! o&n. #he issue should stop at m! end. #his is the truth that I must face. It ma! hurt me financiall! but it &ould set me free from &orries and an6ieties. I have arranged for a loan from mone! lenders and &as able to secure one last Saturda! the releases of &hich are on the follo&ing' 4a! 7, 1AAA. (==,=== 4a! 11, 1AAA .(==,=== 4a! (=, 1AAA.(==,=== June 7, 1AAA.(==,=== I have given m! propert! (lot situated in the province) as m! collateral. I am therefore putting an end to this trouble. I am issuing four chec*s &hich I assure !ou &ill be sufficientl! funded on their due dates b! reason of m! aforestated loans. Just bear &ith me for the last time, if an! of these chec*s, is returned, donNt call me an!more. Just file the necessar! action against me, I +ust had to put an end to this matter and loo* for&ard. 666 7) $etter dated 1( 4a! 1AAA, &hich reads' #he other da! I deposited the amount of %(?A,=== to the ban* to cover the first chec* I issued. In fact I stopped all pa!ments to all other chec*s that are becoming due to some of m! creditors to give preference to the chec* I issued to !ou. #his morning &hen I &ent to the Ban*, I learned that the ban* instead of returning the other chec*s I reFuested for stop pa!ment . instead honored them and mista*enl!
1; 11

returned !our chec*. #his &as a ver! big surprise to me and discouragement for I *no& it &ould reall! upset !ou. In vie& of this I thought of sending !ou the amount of %(==,=== in cash &hich I initiall! plan to &ithdra& from the Ban*. Go&ever, I could not entrust the same amount to the bearer nor can I bring the same to !our place considering that its Fuite a big amount. I am +ust sending a chec* for !ou to immediatel! deposit toda! and I &as assured b! the ban* that it &ould be honored this time. Bormall!, this is not the actuation of one &ho is falsel! accused of appropriating the mone! of another. s correctl! observed b! the Investigating Commissioner, respondent &ould not have issued his personal chec*s if said amount &ere officiall! deposited &ith the BI/. #his is an admission of misconduct. )espondentNs act of as*ing mone! from complainant in consideration of the latterNs pending application for visas is 1> violative of )ule 1.=1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!, &hich prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in an! unla&ful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. 4oreover, said acts constitute a breach of 1? )ule ;.=( of the Code &hich bars la&!ers in government service from promoting their private interest. %romotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or an!thing of monetar! value in an! transaction reFuiring the approval of his office or &hich ma! be affected b! the functions of his 1A office. )espondentNs conduct in office betra!s the integrit! and good moral character reFuired from all la&!ers, especiall! from one occup!ing a high public office. la&!er in public office is e6pected not onl! to refrain from an! act or omission &hich might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citi<enr! in government: he must also uphold the dignit! of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honest! and fair dealing. Other&ise said, a la&!er in government service is a *eeper of the public faith and is burdened &ith high degree of social responsibilit!, perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice. In a desperate attempt to put up a smo*e or to camouflage his misdeed, he &ent on committing another b! issuing several &orthless chec*s, thereb! compounding his case. In a recent case, &e have held that the issuance of &orthless (= chec*s constitutes gross misconduct, as the effect 9transcends the private interests of the parties directl! involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the communit! at large. #he mischief it creates is not onl! a &rong to the pa!ee or holder, but also an in+ur! to the

PALE cases

18

public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can ver! &ell pollute the channels of trade and commerce, in+ure the ban*ing s!stem and eventuall! hurt the &elfare of societ! and the public interest. #hus, paraphrasing Blac*Ns definition, a dra&er &ho issues an unfunded chec* deliberatel! reneges on his private duties he o&es his fello& men or societ! in a manner contrar! to accepted and customar! rule of right and dut!, +ustice, honest! or good (1 morals.9 ConseFuentl!, &e have held that the act of a person in issuing a chec* *no&ing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit &ith, the dra&ee ban* for the pa!ment of the chec* in full upon its (( presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude. )espondentNs acts are more despicable. Bot onl! did he misappropriate the mone! of complainant: &orse, he had the gall to prepare receipts &ith the letterhead of the BI/ and issued chec*s to cover up his misdeeds. Clearl!, he does not deserve to continue, being a member of the bar. #ime and again, &e have declared that the practice of la& is a noble profession. It is a special privilege besto&ed onl! upon those &ho are competent intellectuall!, academicall! and morall!. la&!er must at all times conduct himself, especiall! in his dealings &ith his clients and the public at large, &ith honest! and integrit! in a manner be!ond reproach. Ge must faithfull! perform his duties to societ!, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. violation of the high standards of the legal profession sub+ects the la&!er to administrative sanctions &hich includes suspension and (0 disbarment. 4ore importantl!, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a reFuirement to the en+o!ment of the privilege of la& practice: other&ise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such (7 privilege. Indeed, the primar! ob+ective of administrative cases against la&!ers is not onl! to punish and discipline the erring individual la&!ers but also to safeguard the administration of +ustice b! protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of la&!ers, and to remove from the legal profession persons &hose utter disregard of their la&!erNs oath have proven them unfit to continue discharging the (1 trust reposed in them as members of the bar. #hese pronouncement gain practical significance in the case at bar considering that respondent &as a former member of the Board of Special InFuir! of the BI/. It bears stressing also that government la&!ers &ho are public servants o&e fidelit! to the public service, a public trust. s such, government la&!ers should be more sensitive to their

professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is (; more li*el! to be magnified in the public e!e. s a la&!er, &ho &as also a public officer, respondent miserabl! failed to cope &ith the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession. Section (>, )ule 10? of the )evised )ules of Court mandates that a la&!er ma! be disbarred or suspended b! this Court for an! of the follo&ing acts' (1) deceit: (() malpractice: (0) gross misconduct in office: (7) grossl! immoral conduct: (1) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude : (;) violation of the la&!erNs oath: (>) &illful disobedience of an! la&ful order of a superior court: and (?) &illfull! appearing as an attorne! for a part! &ithout (> authorit! to do so. In tt!. Ditriolo v. tt!. /asig, &e ordered the disbarment of a la&!er &ho, during her tenure as OIC, $egal Services, Commission on Gigher 8ducation, demanded sums of mone! as consideration for the approval of applications and reFuests a&aiting action b! her office. In $im v. (A Barcelona, &e also disbarred a senior la&!er of the Bational $abor )elations Commission, &ho &as caught b! the Bational Bureau of Investigation in the act of receiving and counting mone! e6torted from a certain person. )espondentNs acts constitute gross misconduct: and consistent &ith the need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalt! of 0= e6pulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of la&!ers. HG8)8"O)8, tt!. "red $. Eutierre< is hereb! /ISB ))8/ from the practice of la& and ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant &ith legal interest from his receipt of the mone! until pa!ment. #his case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal prosecution for violation of nti.Eraft and Corrupt %ractices cts and to the /epartment of Justice for appropriate administrative action. $et copies of this /ecision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the respondent: the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines for distribution to all its chapters: and the Office of the Court dministrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the countr!. SO O)/8)8/. 8B B BC A.C. No. 6705 "%r&) >1, 2006
(?

PALE cases

19

R7T6IE LI"9SANTIA O, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CARLOS B. SA 7CIO, )espondent. /8CISIOB CAR!IO, J.: T)* C%,* #his is a disbarment complaint against tt!. Carlos B. Sagucio for violating )ule 11.=0 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! and for def!ing the prohibition against private practice of la& &hile &or*ing as government prosecutor. T)* F%&/, )uthie $im.Santiago (9complainant9) is the daughter of lfonso $im and Special dministratri6 of his 1 estate. lfonso $im is a stoc*holder and the former ( %resident of #aggat Industries, Inc. tt!. Carlos B. Sagucio (9respondent9) &as the former %ersonnel 4anager and )etained Counsel of #aggat 0 Industries, Inc. until his appointment as ssistant %rovincial 7 %rosecutor of #uguegarao, Caga!an in 1AA(. #aggat Industries, Inc. (9#aggat9) is a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of timber concessions from the government. #he %residential Commission on Eood 1 Eovernment seFuestered it sometime in 1A?;, and its ; operations ceased in 1AA>. Sometime in Jul! 1AA>, (1 emplo!ees of #aggat (9#aggat emplo!ees9) filed a criminal complaint entitled 9Jesus #agorda, Jr. et al. v. )uthie $im.Santiago,9 doc*eted as I.S. > Bo. A>.(7= (9criminal complaint9). #aggat emplo!ees alleged that complainant, &ho too* over the management and control of #aggat after the death of her father, &ithheld pa!ment of their salaries and &ages &ithout valid cause ? from 1 pril 1AA; to 11 Jul! 1AA>. )espondent, as ssistant %rovincial %rosecutor, &as A assigned to conduct the preliminar! investigation. Ge resolved the criminal complaint b! recommending the filing 1= 11 of ;11 Informations for violation of rticle (?? in 1( relation to rticle 11; of the $abor Code of the 10 %hilippines. Complainant no& charges respondent &ith the follo&ing violations'

1. )ule 11.=0 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! Complainant contends that respondent is guilt! of representing conflicting interests. )espondent, being the former %ersonnel 4anager and )etained Counsel of #aggat, *ne& the operations of #aggat ver! &ell. )espondent should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and 17 deciding the case filed b! #aggat emplo!ees. "urthermore, complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and threatened #aggat emplo!ees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the 11 complaint. (. 8ngaging in the private practice of la& &hile &or*ing as a government prosecutor Complainant also contends that respondent is guilt! of engaging in the private practice of la& &hile &or*ing as a government prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent received %1=,=== as retainerNs fee for the months of Januar! and "ebruar! 1; 1AA1, another %1=,=== for the months of pril and 4a! 1> 1? 1AA1, and %1,=== for the month of pril 1AA;. Complainant see*s the disbarment of respondent for violating )ule 11.=0 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! and for def!ing the prohibition against private practice of la& &hile &or*ing as government prosecutor. )espondent refutes complainantNs allegations and counters that complainant &as merel! aggrieved b! the resolution of the criminal complaint &hich &as adverse and contrar! to 1A her e6pectation. )espondent claims that &hen the criminal complaint &as filed, respondent had resigned from #aggat for more than (= five !ears. )espondent asserts that he no longer o&ed his (1 undivided lo!alt! to #aggat. )espondent argues that it &as his s&orn dut! to conduct the necessar! preliminar! (( investigation. )espondent contends that complainant failed to establish lac* of impartialit! &hen he performed his (0 dut!. )espondent points out that complainant did not file a motion to inhibit respondent from hearing the criminal (7 complaint but instead complainant voluntaril! e6ecuted (1 and filed her counter.affidavit &ithout mental reservation. )espondent states that complainantNs reason in not filing a motion to inhibit &as her impression that respondent &ould e6onerate her from the charges filed as gleaned from complainantNs statement during the hearing conducted on 1( "ebruar! 1AAA'

PALE cases

20

666 O. ( tt!. /abu). Hhat do !ou mean !ou didnNt thin* he &ould do it, 4adam HitnessT . Because he is supposed to be m! fatherNs friend and he &as &or*ing &ith m! /ad and he &as supposed to be trusted b! m! father. nd he came to me and told me he (; gonna help me. 6 6 6. )espondent also asserts that no conflicting interests e6ist because he &as not representing #aggat emplo!ees or complainant. )espondent claims he &as merel! performing his official dut! as ssistant %rovincial (> %rosecutor. )espondent argues that complainant failed to establish that respondentNs act &as tainted &ith personal (? interest, malice and bad faith. )espondent denies complainantNs allegations that he instigated the filing of the cases, threatened and harassed #aggat emplo!ees. )espondent claims that this accusation is bereft of proof because complainant failed to mention the names of the emplo!ees or present them for cross. (A e6amination. )espondent does not dispute his receipt, after his appointment as government prosecutor, of retainer fees from complainant but claims that it &as onl! on a case.to.case basis and it ceased in 0= 1AA;. )espondent contends that the fees &ere paid for his consultanc! services and not for representation. )espondent submits that consultation is not the same as representation and that rendering consultanc! services is not 01 prohibited. )espondent, in his )epl!.4emorandum, states' 6 6 6 2I3f ever #aggat paid him certain amounts, these &ere paid voluntaril! b! #aggat &ithout the respondentNs as*ing, intended as to*en consultanc! fees on a case.to.case basis and not as or for retainer fees. #hese pa!ments do not at all sho& or translate as a specie of Uconflict of interestN. 4oreover, these consultations had no relation to, or connection &ith, the above.mentioned labor complaints 0( filed b! former #aggat emplo!ees. )espondent insists that complainantNs evidence failed to prove that &hen the criminal complaint &as filed &ith the Office of the %rovincial %rosecutor of Caga!an, respondent 00 &as still the retained counsel or legal consultant. Hhile this disbarment case &as pending, the )esolution and

Order issued b! respondent to file ;11 Informations against complainant &as reversed and set aside b! )egional State %rosecutor of Caga!an )odolfo B. Cadelina last 7 Januar! 07 01 1AAA. Gence, the criminal complaint &as dismissed. #he IB%Ns )eport and )ecommendation #he Integrated Bar of the %hilippinesN Investigating Commissioner 4a. Carmina 4. le+andro. bbas (9IB% 0; Commissioner bbas9) heard the case and allo&ed the 0> parties to submit their respective memoranda. /ue to IB% Commissioner bbasN resignation, the case &as reassigned to Commissioner /ennis .B. "una (9IB% Commissioner 0? "una9). fter the parties filed their memoranda and motion to resolve the case, the IB% Board of Eovernors issued )esolution Bo. CDI.(==7.7>A (9IB% )esolution9) dated 7 0A Bovember (==7 adopting &ith modification IB% Commissioner "unaNs )eport and )ecommendation (9)eport9) finding respondent guilt! of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former clientNs interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice of la& &hile being a government prosecutor. #he IB% Board of Eovernors recommended the imposition of a penalt! of three !ears suspension from the practice of la&. #he )eport reads' Bo& the issue here is &hether being a .or(*r l%24*r o. T%33%/ conflicts &ith his role as ssistant %rovincial %rosecutor in deciding I.S. Bo. A>.(7=. determination of this issue &ill reFuire the test of &hether the matter in I.S. Bo. A>.(7= &ill conflict &ith his former position of %ersonnel 4anager and $egal Counsel of #aggat. I.S. Bo. A>.(7= &as filed for 9Violation of Labor Code9 (see $esolution of t!e Provincial Prosecutors Office% Anne& 'B' of Complaint). Gerein Complainant, )uthie $im.Santiago, &as being accused as having the 'management and control' of #aggat (p. (, $esolution of t!e Prov. Pros. Office, supra). Clearl!, as a former %ersonnel 4anager and $egal Counsel of #aggat, herein )espondent undoubtedl! !andled t!e personnel and labor concerns of (aggat. )espondent, undoubtedl! dealt )it! and related )it! the emplo!ees of #aggat. #herefore, )espondent undoubtedl! dealt )it! and related )it! complainants in *.S. +o. ,-./01. #he issues, therefore, in I.S. Bo. A>.(7=, are ver! much familiar &ith )espondent. Hhile the issues of unpaid salaries pertain to the periods 1AA;.1AA>, the mechanics and personalities in that case are ver! much familiar &ith )espondent.

PALE cases

21

A l%24*r o2*, ,o(*/)i-3 /o % .or(*r &li*-/. Gerein )espondent o&es to #aggat, a former client, the dut! to 9maintain inviolate t!e client2s confidence or to refrain from doing an3t!ing )!ic! )ill in4uriousl3 affect !im in an3 matter in )!ic! !e previousl3 represented !im' (+atam v. Capule, A1 %hil. ;7=: p. (01, gpalo, $egal 8thics, 7th ed.) )espondent argues that as ssistant %rovincial %rosecutor, he does not represent an! client or an! interest e6cept +ustice. It should not be forgotten, ho&ever, that a la&!er has an i((0/%$l* +0/4 /o % .or(*r &li*-/ &ith respect to matters that he previousl! handled for that former client. In this case, matters relating to personnel% labor policies, and labor relations that he previousl! handled as %ersonnel 4anager and $egal Counsel of #aggat. I.S. Bo. A>.(7= &as for 'Violation of t!e Labor Code.' 6*r* li*, /)* &o-.li&/. %erhaps it &ould have been different had I.S. Bo. A>.(7= not been labor.related, or if )espondent had not been a %ersonnel 4anager concurrentl! as $egal Counsel. But as it is, I.S. Bo. A>.(7= is labor.related and )espondent &as a former %ersonnel 4anager of #aggat. 6666 Hhile )espondent ceased his relations &ith #aggat in 1AA( and the unpaid salaries being sought in I.S. Bo. A>.(7= &ere of the !ears 1AA; and 1AA>, the emplo!ees and management involved %r* /)* 1*r4 p*r,o-%li/i*, )* +*%l/ 2i/) %, !*r,o--*l "%-%3*r %-+ L*3%l Co0-,*l o. T%33%/. )espondent dealt &ith these persons in his fiduciar! relations &ith #aggat. 4oreover, he &as an emplo!ee of the corporation and part of its management. 6666 s to the propriet! of receiving 9)etainer "ees9 or 9consultanc! fees9 from herein Complainant &hile being an ssistant %rovincial %rosecutor, and for rendering legal consultanc! &or* &hile being an ssistant %rovincial %rosecutor, this matter had long been settled. o1*r-(*-/ pro,*&0/or, %r* pro)i$i/*+ /o *-3%3* i- /)* pri1%/* pr%&/i&* o. l%2 (see $egal and Judicial 8thics, 8rnesto %ineda, 1AA7 ed., p. (=: People v. Villanueva, 17 SC) 1=A: A5uino v. Blanco >= %hil. ;7>). #he act of being a legal consultant is a practice of la&. #o engage in the practice of la& is to do an! of those acts that are characteristic of the legal profession (*n re6 David, A0 %hil. 7;1). It covers an! activit!, in or out of court, &hich reFuired the application of la&, legal principles, practice or procedures and calls for legal *no&ledge, training and e6perience ( PLA v. Agrava, 1=1 %hil. 1>0: People v. Villanueva, 17 SC)

111: Ca3etano

v.

7onsod, (=1 SC)

(1=).

)espondent clearl! violated this prohibition. s for the secondar! accusations of harassing certain emplo!ees of #aggat and instigating the filing of criminal complaints, &e find the evidence insufficient. ccordingl!, )espondent should be found guilt! of conflict of interest, failure to safeguard a former clientNs interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice of la& 7= &hile being a government prosecutor. #he IB% Board of Eovernors for&arded the )eport to the 71 Court as provided under Section 1((b), )ule 10A.B of the )ules of Court. #he )uling of the Court #he Court e6onerates respondent from the charge of violation of )ule 11.=0 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! (9Code9). Go&ever, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of )ule 1.=1, Canon 1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! against unla&ful 7( conduct. )espondent committed unla&ful conduct &hen he violated Section >(b)(() of the Code of Conduct and 8thical Standards for %ublic Officials and 8mplo!ees or )epublic ct Bo. ;>10 (9) ;>109). Canon ; provides that the Code 9shall appl! to la&!ers in government service in the discharge of their official 70 duties.9 government la&!er is thus bound b! the prohibition 9not 2to3 represent conflicting 77 interests.9 Go&ever, this rule is sub+ect to certain limitations. #he prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not appl! &hen no conflict of interest e6ists, &hen a &ritten consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or &hen no true attorne!.client 71 relationship e6ists. 4oreover, considering the serious conseFuence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessar! to 7; +ustif! the imposition of the administrative penalt!. )espondent is also mandated under )ule 1.=1 of Canon 1 not to engage in 9unla&ful 6 6 6 conduct.9 @nla&ful conduct includes violation of the statutor! prohibition on a government emplo!ee to 9engage in the private practice of 2his3 profession unless authori<ed b! the Constitution or la&, provided, that such practice &ill not conflict or tend to 7> conflict &ith 2his3 official functions.9 ComplainantNs evidence failed to substantiate the claim that

PALE cases

22

respondent represented conflicting interests In Ouiambao v. Bamba, the Court enumerated various tests to determine conflict of interests. One test of inconsistenc! of interests is &hether the la&!er &ill be as*ed to use against his former client an! confidential information acFuired through their connection or previous 7A emplo!ment. In essence, &hat a la&!er o&es his former client is to maintain inviolate the clientNs confidence or to refrain from doing an!thing &hich &ill in+uriousl! affect him 1= in an! matter in &hich he previousl! represented him. In the present case, &e find no conflict of interests &hen respondent handled the preliminar! investigation of the criminal complaint filed b! #aggat emplo!ees in 1AA>. #he issue in the criminal complaint pertains to non.pa!ment of &ages that occurred from 1 pril 1AA; to 11 Jul! 1AA>. Clearl!, respondent &as no longer connected &ith #aggat during that period since he resigned sometime in 1AA(. In order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used against #aggat, his former client, an! confidential information acFuired through his previous emplo!ment. #he onl! established participation respondent had &ith respect to the criminal complaint is that he &as the one &ho conducted the preliminar! investigation. On that basis alone, it does not necessaril! follo& that respondent used an! confidential information from his previous emplo!ment &ith complainant or #aggat in resolving the criminal complaint. #he fact alone that respondent &as the former %ersonnel 4anager and )etained Counsel of #aggat and the case he resolved as government prosecutor &as labor.related is not a sufficient basis to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests. la&!erNs immutable dut! to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred be!ond the la&!erNs emplo!ment &ith the client. #he intent of the la& is to impose upon the la&!er the dut! to protect the clientNs interests onl! on matters that he previousl! handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the la&!er. client relationship has terminated. "urther, complainant failed to present a single iota of evidence to prove her allegations. #hus, respondent is not guilt! of violating )ule 11.=0 of the Code. )espondent engaged in the private practice of la& while working as a government prosecutor #he Court has defined the practice of la& broadl! as 5
7?

6 6 6 an! activit!, in or out of court, &hich reFuires the application of la&, legal procedure, *no&ledge, training and e6perience. 9#o engage in the practice of la& is to perform those acts &hich are characteristics of the profession. Eenerall!, to practice la& is to give notice or render an! *ind of service, &hich device or service reFuires the use in an! 11 degree of legal *no&ledge or s*ill.9 9%rivate practice of la&9 contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habituall! or customaril! holding oneNs 1( self to the public as a la&!er. )espondent argues that he onl! rendered consultanc! services to #aggat intermittentl! and he &as not a retained counsel of #aggat from 1AA1 to 1AA; as alleged. #his argument is &ithout merit because the la& does not distinguish bet&een consultanc! services and retainer agreement. "or as long as respondent performed acts that are usuall! rendered b! la&!ers &ith the use of their legal *no&ledge, the same falls &ithin the ambit of the term 9practice of la&.9 Bonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to complainant &hile &or*ing as a government prosecutor. 8ven the receipts he signed stated that the 10 pa!ments b! #aggat &ere for 9)etainerNs fee.9 #hus, as correctl! pointed out b! complainant, respondent clearl! violated the prohibition in ) ;>10. Go&ever, violations of ) ;>10 are not sub+ect to disciplinar! action under the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit! unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. Certainl!, the IB% has no +urisdiction to investigate violations of ) ;>10 5 the Code of Conduct and 8thical Standards for %ublic Officials and 8mplo!ees 5 unless the acts involved also transgress provisions of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. Gere, respondentNs violation of ) ;>10 also constitutes a violation of )ule 1.=1 of Canon 1, &hich mandates that 92a3 la&!er shall not engage in unla&ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.9 )espondentNs admission that he received from #aggat fees for legal services &hile serving as a government prosecutor is an unla&ful conduct, &hich constitutes a violation of )ule 1.=1. )espondent admitted that complainant also charged him &ith unla&ful conduct &hen respondent stated in his /emurrer to 8vidence' In this instant case, the complainant pra!s that the

PALE cases

23

respondent be permanentl! and indefinitel! suspended or disbarred from the practice of the la& profession and his name removed from the )oll of ttorne!s on the follo&ing grounds' 6666 d) that respondent manifested gross misconduct and gross violation of his oath of office and in his dealings &ith the 17 public. On the ppropriate %enalt! on )espondent #he appropriate penalt! on an errant la&!er depends on the e6ercise of sound +udicial discretion based on the 11 surrounding facts. @nder Civil Service $a& and rules, the penalt! for government emplo!ees engaging in unauthori<ed private practice of profession is suspension for si6 months and one 1; da! to one !ear. He find this penalt! appropriate for respondentNs violation in this case of )ule 1.=1, Canon 1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. 56EREFORE, &e find respondent Sagucio tt!. Carlos B.

E99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9E

RESOL7TION CORONA, J.#

Complainant Hilfredo 4. Catu is a co.o&ner of a lot

213

and the building erected thereon located at A1A San

ndres Street, 4alate, 4anila. Gis mother and brother, )egina Catu and ntonio Catu, contested the possession of
2(3

8li<abeth C. /ia<.Catu

and

ntonio %astor

203

of one of the

units in the building. #he latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. #hus, a complaint &as initiated against them in the Lupong
th

(agapama3apa
273

of Baranga!

>(0, Mone >A of the 1 /istrict of 4anila reside.

&here the parties

)espondent, as punong

baranga3 of Baranga! >(0,

213

7ILTY of violation of )ule 1.=1, Canon 1 of the

Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. ccordingl!, &e S7S!END respondent tt!. Carlos B. Sagucio from the practice of la& for SID "ONT6S effective upon finalit! of this /ecision. $et copies of this /ecision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondentNs personal record as an attorne!, the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines, the /epartment of Justice, and all courts in the countr! for their information and guidance. SO ORDERED.

summoned the parties to conciliation meetings.

Hhen the

parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.

#hereafter, )egina and

ntonio filed a complaint for

e+ectment against 8li<abeth and %astor in the 4etropolitan #rial Court of 4anila, Branch 11. )espondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case.

FIRST DIVISION 5ILFREDO ". CAT7, Co(pl%i-%-/, , 9 1*r,0, ATTY. VICENTE . RELLOSA, R*,po-+*-/. "ebruar! 1A, (==? %romulgated' .C. Bo. 1>0?

Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint,

2;3

claiming that respondent committed an act of

impropriet! as a la&!er and as a public officer &hen he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings bet&een the litigants aspunong baranga3.

In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his

PALE cases

24

duties as punong

baranga3 &as to hear complaints referred (agapama3apa. s such, he heard

to the baranga!NsLupong

the complaint of )egina and %astor.

ntonio against 8li<abeth and

after leaving government service, accept engagement or emplo!ment in connection &ith an! matter in &hich he intervened &hile in said service.

s head of the Lupon, he performed his tas* &ith "urthermore, as an elective official, respondent contravened the prohibition under Section >(b)(() of ) ;>10'
2?3

utmost ob+ectivit!, &ithout bias or partialit! to&ards an! of the parties. #he parties, ho&ever, &ere not able to amicabl! settle their dispute and )egina and ntonio filed the

e+ectment case. It &as then that 8li<abeth sought his legal assistance. Ge acceded to her reFuest. Ge handled her case for free because she &as financiall! distressed and he &anted to prevent the commission of a patent in+ustice against her.

S8C. >. Pro!ibited Acts (ransactions. 5 In addition to acts omissions of public officials emplo!ees no& prescribed in Constitution and e6isting la&s, follo&ing shall constitute prohibited

and and and the the acts

and transactions of an! public official ands emplo!ee and are hereb! declared to be unla&ful' 666 666 666

#he complaint &as referred to the Integrated Bar of the %hilippines (IB%) for investigation, report and

recommendation.

s there &as no factual issue to thresh

out, the IB%Ns Commission on Bar /iscipline (CB/) reFuired the parties to submit their respective position papers. fter

(b) Outside emplo3ment and ot!er activities related t!ereto. 5 %ublic officials and emplo!ees during their incumbenc! shall not' 666 666 666

evaluating the contentions of the parties, the IB%.CB/ found sufficient ground to discipline respondent.
2>3

ccording to the IB%.CB/, respondent admitted that, as punong baranga3, he presided over the conciliation

(() E-3%3* i/)* pri1%/* pr%&/i&* o. pro.*,,io0-l*,, %0/)ori@*+ $4 /)* Co-,/i/0/io- or l%2, provided that such practice &ill not conflict or tend to conflict &ith their official functions: 666 (emphasis supplied)

proceedings and heard the complaint of )egina and ntonio against 8li<abeth and %astor. SubseFuentl!,

ho&ever, he represented 8li<abeth and %astor in the e+ectment case filed against them b! )egina and ntonio. In

ccording to the IB%.CB/, respondentNs violation of this prohibition constituted a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!' C BOB 1. $ HL8) SG $$ @%GO$/ #G8 COBS#I#@#IOB, OBEY T6E LA5S OF T6E LAND, !RO"OTE RES!ECT FOR LA5 B/ $8E $ %)OC8SS8S. (emphasis supplied)

the course thereof, he prepared and signed pleadings including the ans&er &ith counterclaim, pre.trial brief, position paper and notice of appeal. B! so doing, respondent violated )ule ;.=0 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!' )ule ;.=0 5 la&!er shall not,

PALE cases

25

"or these infractions, the IB%.CB/ recommended the respondentNs suspension from the practice of la& for one month &ith a stern &arning that the commission of the same or similar act &ill be dealt &ith more severel!.
2A3

and emplo!ees, during their incumbenc!, from engaging in the private practice of their profession Qunless authori<ed b! the Constitution or la&, provided that such practice &ill not conflict or tend to conflict &ith their official functions.R #his is the general la& &hich applies to all public officials and emplo!ees. "or elective local government officials, Section A= of

#his

&as adopted and approved b! the IB% Board of Eovernors.

21=3

He modif! the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as &ell as the recommendation on the imposable penalt!.

>1;=

21(3

governs'

R7LE 6.0> OF T6E CODE OF !ROFESSIONAL RES!ONSIBILITY A!!LIES ONLY TO FOR"ER OVERN"ENT LA5YERS

S8C. A=. Practice of Profession. 5 (a) ll governors, cit! and municipal ma!ors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in an! occupation other than the e6ercise of their functions as local chief e6ecutives. (b) Sanggunian members ma! practice their professions, engage in an! occupation, or teach in schools e6cept during session hours'Provided, #hat sanggunian members &ho are members of the Bar shall not' (1) ppear as counsel before an! court in an! civil case &herein a local government unit or an! office, agenc!, or instrumentalit! of the government is the adverse part!: (() ppear as counsel in an! criminal case &herein an officer or emplo!ee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office: (0) Collect an! fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of &hich he is an official: and (7) @se propert! and personnel of the Eovernment e6cept &hen the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the Eovernment. (c) /octors of medicine ma! practice their profession even during official hours of &or* onl! on occasions of emergenc!' Provided, #hat the officials concerned do not derive

)espondent cannot be found liable for violation of )ule ;.=0 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. s

&orded, that )ule applies onl! to a la&!er &ho has left government service and in connection Q&ith an! matter in v.

&hich he intervened &hile in said service.R In PCGG Sandiganba3an, 3o1*r-(*-/

2113

&e ruled that )ule ;.=0 pro)i$i/, .or(*r accepting Qengagement or

l%24*r, from

emplo!ment in connection &ith an! matter in &hich 2the!3 had intervened &hile in said service.R

)espondent &as an incumbent punong

baranga3 at

the time he committed the act complained of. #herefore, he &as not covered b! that provision.

SECTION :0 OF RA 7160, NOT SECTION 7FBGF2G OF RA 671>, OVERNS T6E !RACTICE OF !ROFESSION OF ELECTIVE LOCAL OVERN"ENT OFFICIALS

Section >(b)(() of )

;>10 prohibits public officials

PALE cases

26

monetar! compensation therefrom.

In other &ords, the! ma! practice their professions, engage in an! occupation, or teach in schools outside their session

#his is a special provision that applies specificall! to hours. the practice of profession b! elective local officials. s a ma!ors, members special la& &ith a definite scope (that is, the practice of panlala)igan, sangguniang profession b! elective local officials), it constitutes an ba3an are reFuired to hold regular sessions onl! at least once e6ception to Section >(b)(() of ) ;>10, the general la& on a &ee*. engaging in the private practice of profession b! public practice their professions, engage in an! occupation or officials and
2103 2173

@nli*e governors, cit! of

ma!ors

and

municipal

the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang

Since the la& itself grants them the authorit! to

emplo!ees. Le&

specialibus

derogat teach in schools outside session hours, there is no longer an! need for them to secure prior permission or authori<ation

generalibus.

@nder )

>1;=, elective local officials of provinces,

from an! other person or office for an! of these purposes.

cities, municipalities and baranga!s are the follo&ing' the Hhile, as alread! discussed, certain local elective governor, the vice governor and members of officials (li*e governors, ma!ors, provincial board members the sangguniang panlala)igan for provinces: the cit! ma!or, and councilors) are e6pressl! sub+ected to a total or partial the cit! vice ma!or and the members of the sangguniang proscription to practice their profession or engage in an! panlungsod for cities: the municipal ma!or, the municipal occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong vice ma!or and the members of the sangguniang municipalities and the punong the sangguniang the sangguniang ba3anfor baranga3 and baranga3, the members of baranga3. 8&pressio baranga3 and the members of
2113

the

members unius est

of

the sangguniang alterius.

e&clusio

Since the! are e6cluded from an! prohibition, the

kabataan for baranga!s. presumption is that the! are allo&ed to practice their profession. nd this stands to reason because the! are not

Of these elective local officials, governors, cit! ma!ors and municipal ma!ors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in an! occupation other than the e6ercise of their functions as local chief e6ecutives. #his is because the! are reFuired to render full time service. #he!

mandated to serve full time. In fact, the sangguniang baranga3 is supposed to hold regular sessions onl! t&ice a month.
21;3

ccordingl!, as punong should therefore devote all their time and attention to the performance of their official duties.

baranga3, respondent &as

not forbidden to practice his profession. Go&ever, he should have procured prior permission or authori<ation from the On the other hand, members of the sangguniang panlala)igan, sangguniang ba3an ma! practice their panlungsod or sangguniang professions, engage in an! head of his /epartment, as reFuired b! civil service regulations. A LA5YER IN OVERN"ENT SERVICE 56O IS NOT !RO6IBITED TO !RACTICE LA5 "7ST SEC7RE !RIOR A7T6ORITY FRO" T6E 6EAD OF 6IS DE!ART"ENT

occupation, or teach in schools e6cept during session hours.

PALE cases

27

#he failure of respondent to compl! &ith Section 1(, civil service officer or emplo!ee &hose )ule CDIII of the )evised Civil Service )ules constitutes a violation of his oath as a la&!er' to obe! the la&s. $a&!ers are servants of the la&, vires legis, men of the la&. #heir

responsibilities do not reFuire his time to be full! at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of la& onl! &ith the &ritten permission of the head of the department concerned.
21>3

paramount dut! to societ! is to obe! the la& and promote respect for it. #o underscore the primac! and importance of this dut!, it is enshrined as the first canon of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!.

Section 1(, )ule CDIII of

the )evised Civil Service )ules provides' Sec. 1(. No o..i&*r or *(plo4** ,)%ll *-3%3* +ir*&/l4 i%-4 private business, vocation, or pro.*,,io- or be connected &ith an! commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial underta*ing 2i/)o0/ % 2ri//*- p*r(i,,io.ro( /)* )*%+ o. /)* D*p%r/(*-/' Provided, #hat this prohibition &ill be absolute in the case of those officers and emplo!ees &hose duties and responsibilities reFuire that their entire time be at the disposal of the Eovernment: Provided% furt!er, #hat if an emplo!ee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours should be fi6ed b! the agenc! to the end that it &ill not impair in an! &a! the efficienc! of the officer or emplo!ee' nd provided% finall3, that no permission is necessar! in the case of investments, made b! an officer or emplo!ee, &hich do not involve real or apparent conflict bet&een his private interests and public duties, or in an! &a! influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not ta*e part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors. (emphasis supplied)

In acting as counsel for a part! &ithout first securing the reFuired &ritten permission, respondent not onl! engaged in the unauthori<ed practice of la& but also violated civil service rules &hich is a breach of )ule 1.=1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!' )ule 1.=1 5 A l%24*r ,)%ll -o/ *-3%3* i- 0-l%2.0l, dishonest, immoral or deceitful &o-+0&/. (emphasis supplied)

"or not living up to his oath as &ell as for not compl!ing &ith the e6acting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to compl! &ith Canon > of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!' C BOB >. A LA5YER S6ALL AT ALL TI"ES 7!6OLD T6E INTE RITY AND T6E DI NITY OF T6E LE AL !ROFESSION B/ S@%%O)# #G8 C#IDI#I8S O" #G8 IB#8E) #8/ B ). (emphasis supplied)

s punong

baranga3, respondent should have

Indeed, a la&!er &ho disobe!s the la& disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignit! of the legal profession.

therefore obtained the prior &ritten permission of the Secretar! of Interior and $ocal Eovernment before he entered his appearance as counsel for 8li<abeth and %astor. #his he failed to do.

%ublic confidence in the la& and in la&!ers ma! be eroded b! the irresponsible and improper conduct of a

PALE cases

28

member of the bar.

21?3

8ver! la&!er should act and comport

himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrit! of the legal profession.
21A3

member of the bar ma! be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorne! for violation of the la&!erNs oath
2(=3

and-or for breach of the ethics of the legal

profession as embodied in the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!.

56EREFORE, respondent hereb! found 7ILTY of

tt!. Dicente E. )ellosa is misconduct for

professional

violating his oath as a la&!er and Canons 1 and > and )ule 1.=1 of the Code of %rofessional )esponsibilit!. Ge is therefore S7S!ENDED .ro( /)* pr%&/i&* o. l%2 for a period of si6 months effective from his receipt of this resolution. Ge is sternl! 5ARNED that an! repetition of similar acts shall be dealt &ith more severel!.

)espondent is strongl! advised to loo* up and ta*e to heart the meaning of the &ord delicade9a.

$et a cop! of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered into the records of respondent tt!. Dicente E. )ellosa. #he Office of the Court

dministrator shall furnish copies to all the courts of the land for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

PALE cases

29

C S8S'

1. saberon vs larong (. ala&i vs alau!a 0. <aballero vs montalvan 7. lim vs montano 1. donton vs tansingco ;. hu!ssen vs Eutierre< >. lim vs saguico ?. catu vs rellosa

PALE cases

30