Está en la página 1de 4

Case No.

1
[A.C. No. 7388. October 19, 2016.]
Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok vs. Felipe G. Zapatos

FACTS:
Respondent Felipe G. Zapatos was the Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Trial Court in Tangub City where he presided over a Forcible Entry case
entitled "Ronald Rupinta vs. Sps. Pacifico Conol and Malinda Conol."
Complainant Atty. Rutillo Pasok was the counsel of Rupinta. Another civil
complaint was filed by Ronald Rupinta together with his mother, against
Spouses Conol where complainant represented the plaintiffs. Later on,
respondent was appointed Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 35 in Ozamis
City. Complainant was surprised that the defendants are now represented
by respondent, the former judge who once presided over the aforesaid
case.
Since the case was later on dismissed, complainant appealed to the RTC.
He also alleged that the appearance of respondent is highly illegal,
immoral, unethical and adverse to the interest of the public, respondent,
being the previous presiding judge, continued on with his appearance for
the appellees.
Respondent raised as his defense that he cannot be charged nor penalized
of any violation because when he rendered the first judgment in the
Forcible Entry case, he believes he was completely in absolute neutrality.
Respondent also justified his appearance as counsel for the defendants on
the ground that he is encountering extreme poverty due to the absence of
adequate income and as a source of livelihood he was constrained to
handle the aforesaid case.
Respondent was later on promoted as Regional Trial Court Judge of Branch
35, Ozamis City on until he retired from the Judiciary. Thereafter, on
account of the fact that respondent needs income in order to survive or he
would die of starvation, he engaged in the private practice of law. Ignoring
the warnings of the complainant, the respondent persisted in his
representation of the defendants in the said civil case. Hence, the
complainant commenced this administrative case.
The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The IBP-CBD issued its Report and Recommendation whereby it found and
held the respondent guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and recommended that he be suspended from
the practice of law and as a member of the Bar for one (1) month.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent lawyer is guilty for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility
RULING:
The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP
Board of Directors. It was held that the respondent was guilty in violating
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional responsibility since it was sufficiently
shown that the respondent accepted the engagement in relation to a matter
that he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the
proceedings. The respondent, in his capacity as the judge of the MTCC,
presided over the case before eventually inhibiting himself from further
proceedings. His act of presiding constituted intervention within the
meaning of the rule whose text does not mention the degree or length of
the intervention in the particular case or matter. In this context, he not only
exercised the power to influence the outcome of the proceedings but also
had a direct hand in bringing about the result of the case by virtue of his
having the power to rule on it.
Although the respondent removed himself from the cases once his
neutrality and impartiality were challenged, he ultimately did not stay
away from the cases following his retirement from the Bench, and acted
thereon as a lawyer for and in behalf of the defendants.
The Supreme Court also held that representing the defendants in the civil
cases was not the only way by which he could improve his dire financial
situation. It would not be difficult for him, being a lawyer and a former
member of the Bench, to accept clients whom he could ethically represent
in a professional capacity. If the alternatives open to him were not
adequate to his liking, he had other recourses, like serving as a notary
public under a valid commission. He should have maintained his ethical
integrity by avoiding the engagement by the defendants. The Supreme
Court rendered a judgment that the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one month with a warning that a similar offense by him
will be dealt with more severely.
Case No. 2
[A.C. No. 10565. September 7, 2016.]
Prosecutor Rhodna A. Bacatan, Vs. Atty. Merari D. Dadula
FACTS:
Cases were raffled to complainant for preliminary investigation: (1) a
complaint for libel (I.S. No. 4760) filed by Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez
against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr.; and (2) a complaint for falsification (I.S. No.
4999-J) filed by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez.
Respondent was the counsel of Carlito Impas, Jr. Complainant found
probable cause for libel and recommended its filing in court, while the
complaint for falsification was recommended for dismissal for lack of
probable cause. Both recommendations were approved by the City
Prosecutor.
In her pleadings, respondent accused complainant of manifest partiality
and bias against her client. Respondent then alleged that all these adverse
actions of prosecutor Bacatan show that the prosecutor must have been
bribed. In her Comment, complainant denied the charges of undue haste
on the libel case and undue delay on the falsification case. According to
her, the two cases were raffled on different dates and received by her office
on separate dates. Adopting a first-in-first-out policy, the libel case, which
was raffled first, was resolved earlier than the falsification case.
Respondent claimed that complainant's undue haste and grave irregularity
in handling the case is evident from the Resolution and Information which
she prepared and signed on the same day.
The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The IBP-CB found that respondent failed to abide by the bounds of
courtesy, fairness and candor as provided in Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. She had overstepped the bounds of fair play
and have drawn herself to the maelstrom of misconduct by dangerously
and recklessly including in her pleadings a completely and irrelevant
allegation concerning complainant's character that did not enter into the
equation as a factor in the determination of whether probable cause existed
in the matter tasked by the processes to be resolved by complainant and
that she was a comparatively new member of the profession.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent lawyer is guilty for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that membership in the bar imposes upon lawyers
certain obligations to one another, including the observance of honourable,
candid and courteous dealings with other lawyers, as well as maintaining
fidelity to known and recognized customs and practices of the bar that
make the practice of law a profession.
The unfavourable resolutions against her client prompted respondent to
hurl accusations of irregularity and bribery against complainant. Strongly
worded statements by a lawyer against opposing counsel, if justified by the
records, may not justify disciplinary actions against the former. But such is
not the case here. Respondent's tirades against complainant have proven to
be baseless.
Further, the attack on the character of the complainant is also completely
unnecessary in the motion for determination of probable cause on the libel
case. Contrary to respondent's contention, her misconduct is not cured nor
justified by the eventual acquittal of her client.
Respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable,
unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or enthusiasm is
disfavoured. When without proof nor enough basis on record, respondent
swiftly concluded, based only on gut feeling, that the complainant has been
bribed or had acted for a valuable consideration, her conduct has
overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness and candor.
The Supreme Court rendered a judgment finfing respondent Atty. Merari
D. Dadula guilty of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. She was imposed a FINE of P2,000.00 with STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.

También podría gustarte