De Jesus - Paras vs Vailoces

A.C. No. 439, April 12, 1961

Bautista Angelo, J.

FACTS​: As a member of the bar and capacity as a notary public, Atty. Quinciano
Vailoces acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and
testament of one Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. The will was impugned by de Jesus’
surviving spouse and daughter arguing that the will was a product of forgery. Vailoces
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of falsification of public
document. As a consequence, the offended party instituted the present disbarment
proceedings. Vailoces pleads that the complaint against him be dismissed as he
contends that the charge was motivated by sheer vindictiveness, malice, and spite on
the part of the complainant and that allowing such charge would tantamount to placing
him in double jeopardy.

ISSUE​: Whether or not Vailoces may be disbarred following his conviction for the crime
of falsification of public document

HELD​: Yes. Under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar
may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney if it appears that he has been
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes any act deemed
contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. Since Vailoces was convicted of a crime of
falsification of public document which involves moral turpitude, he rendered himself
amenable to disbarment under the mentioned rule.

With regard to his claims of double jeopardy, the same cannot be had. Such defense
can only be availed of when he is placed in the predicament of being prosecuted for the
same offense, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense necessary included. Neither of which is the case here.
Cuenco vs Fernan
158 SCRA 29, February 17, 1988
Per Curiam

FACTS​: Atty. Miguel Cuenco filed a disbarment case against Justice Marcelo B. Fernan
of the Supreme Court. It was alleged that Justice Fernan remained to be the counsel for
the three instituted heirs of Vito Borromeo despite having been appointed as an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It was also noted that Fernan used his position
to influence the decision of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court with regard to the
payment of attorney’s fees for the services rendered by Atty. Cuenco to the Vito
Borromeo Estate.

ISSUE​: Whether or not Atty. Miguel Cuenco’s charges have merit

HELD​: No. The Court found that there was nothing in the Vito Borromeo Estate Case
Records that would indicate that Justice Fernan continued to be the counsel for the
instituted heirs of Vito Borromeo. However, the record revealed that Justice Fernan
actually withdrew as counsel in the case. In addition, complainant Cuenco failed to
adduce any evidence to support his allegations that Justice Fernan continued to be the
counsel for the instituted heirs of Vito Borromeo. Cuenco’s allegations that Justice
Fernan used his position to influence the outcome of the cases is also bereft of merit.
Justice Fernan even inhibited himself from participating in the deliberations of the Vito
Borromeo Estate Cases and also did not take part in the resolution thereof.
Siao Aba, et al. vs De Guzman Jr., et al.
A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011
Carpio, J.

FACTS​: Complainants claim that they met Pasay City Regional Trial Court Judge
Salvador P. De Guzman Jr. in Cotabato City. It was alleged that the said judge
persuaded them to file an illegal recruitment case against certain persons, in exchange
for money. The group of Judge De Guzman included Pasay City Mayor Trinidad, Atty.
Fornier, and the Go Tian Brothers which he claimed to be untouchable. Complainants
received numerous phone calls from the group telling them that they pursue the case.
When they ask what would happen if a warrant of arrest would be issued, Judge De
Guzman allegedly said “Ipa tubus natin sa kanila, perahan natin sila.” Bothered by their
conscience, they decided not to pursue with the illegal recruitment case which resulted
to threats made by the group towards them. They subsequently filed this administrative
case against the respondents. In defense, respondents argue that the claims by the
complainants were spurious.

The Commission on Bar Discipline dismissed the complaints against Mayor Trinidad
and Atty. Fornier but suspended Judge De Guzman for two years. The Investigating
Commissioner found that the complainants failed to substantiate their charges against
Mayor Trinidad and Atty. Fornier but Judge De Guzman failed to deny the allegations
against him. The Governing Board of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the
findings of the Commission.

ISSUE​: Whether or not Trinidad, Fornier, and De Guzman be administratively

disciplined based on the allegations of the complaint

HELD​: No. Section 3(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that a person is
presumed innocent of crime or wrongdoing. The Court has consistently held that ​in
suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the
presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove
the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment
proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are
equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the
respondent. In this case, the complainant failed to overcome the burden of proof
required of them to prove the administrative liabilities of the respondents.
Uy vs Mercado
A.M. No. R-368-MTJ, September 30, 1987
Per Curiam

FACTS​: Municipal Trial Court Judge Renato S. Mercado of Quirino Province is

administratively charged with abuse of judicial power and discretion and gross
ignorance of the law. Former Mambabatas Pambansa (MP) Orlando Dulay filed a
criminal case of libel against complainant Benjamin Uy. It was alleged that Judge
Mercado conducted preliminary investigation and issued a warrant of arrest on the
same day against the complainant without any evidence or proof. Complainant filed this
administrative complaint claiming that Judge Mercado has no jurisdiction over the case
as the newspaper article which was alleged to be libelous was published in Manila
thus, the courts of Quezon City where MP Dulay held office or the court of Manila where
it was published should have jurisdiction over the case and not the court of Quirino
Province.

ISSUE​: Whether or not Judge Mercado can be held administratively liable for issuing a
warrant of arrest in a case which he has no jurisdiction in

HELD​: Yes. Since libel suits are often intended to harass the offender, the respondent
judge should not have only checked if probable cause exists but also made certain that
venue is properly laid and jurisdiction legally acquired before taking cognizance of the
case before issuing a warrant of arrest. Based on the records, it can be deduced that
the unjustified and irregular acts of the judge constituted a serious misconduct and
gross ignorance of the law.
Samonte vs Abellana
A.C. No. 3452, June 23, 2014
Bersamin, J.

FACTS​: Complainant Henry Samonte filed an administrative complaint against Atty.

Gines Abellana for: (1) falsification of documents when Atty. Abellana made it appear
that he had filed a civil case on June 10, 1988 when in fact, it was actually filed on June
14, 1988; (2) dereliction of duty when Atty. Abellana failed to file a reply on behalf of
Samonte, failed to inform the trial court of Samonte’s absence in a scheduled hearing,
and failed to submit an exhibit required by the trial court judge; (3) gross negligence and
tardiness in attending scheduled hearings; and (5) ​dishonesty for not issuing official
receipts for every cash payments made by Samonte for his court appearances and his
acceptance of the case. The IBP Board of Governors disbarred Atty. Abellana for
showing a facility for utilizing false and deceitful practices as a means to cover-up his
delay and lack of diligence in pursuing the case of his client.

ISSUE​: Whether or not Atty. Abellana’s disbarment was proper

HELD​: No. In his dealings with the court and client, Atty. Abellana failed to exercise
honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. It was sufficiently proven that Atty. Abellana
superimposed the number “4” to “0” to make it appear that he had filed the case on
June 10. But it did not stop there, he continued misleading Samonte in explaining his
mishandling of the latter’s case. However, it cannot be ignored that Atty. Abellana
finished Samonte’s case and the administrative case against Atty. Abellana was
instituted after the relationship between them was tainted with mistrust. The proper
sanction is a six-month suspension of Atty. Abellana.