canon 12 and 13 (including rules) -- illustrative cases

7/21/2019 Canon 12 and 13 (Including Rules) -- Illustrative Cases

1/74

Compiled by: | TINA SIUAGAN

1LEGAL ETHICS ASSIGNED CASE READINGS

CANON 12 - GENERAL

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 6986 March 6, 2006

JULIUS V. AGUSTIN, Complainant,

vs.ATTY. ENRIQUE S. EMPLEO, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

GARCIA, J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment1filed by

complainant Julius V. Agustin against respondent Atty. Enrique

S. Empleo for the latters failure to comply with a court

order while acting as the formers counsel, thereby resulting in

the outright dismissal of a case and the complainants

counterclaim therein.

Records reveal that complainant was the defendant in Civil

Case No. B-259 for Forcible Entry with Preliminary Mandatory

Injunction and Damages then pending before the 2nd

Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Bindoy, Negros Oriental,

in which respondent was his counsel.

In the course of the proceedings in that case, the MCTC issued

an Order on September 25, 1998,2giving theparties to the case

a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof within which

to submit their compromise agreement or amicable settlement

for the approval of the court.

With no compromise agreement having been submitted by the

parties within the period thus given or thereafter, the MCTC,

some four (4) years later, or on August 5, 2002, issued an

Order3dismissing Civil Case No. B-259 and the counterclaim

therein for failure of the parties to prosecute.

Blaming his counsel for the dismissal of the case and his

counterclaim therein, complainant filed on October 18, 2004,

an administrative complaint against respondent with the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), thereat docketed as

CBD Case No. 04-1344.

Acting on the complaint, the IBP Director for Bar Discipline,

Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan, required respondent to submit his

answer thereto, otherwise he will be considered as in default

and the case heard ex-parte.4

In his answer,5respondent admits having been complainants

counsel in Civil Case No. B-259 and the dismissal of that case

by the MCTC for the parties failure to submit a compromise

agreement. He explained, however, that the non-submission of

the compromise agreement was due to complainants own
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt1


2/74



fault in not contacting him for the purpose of providing the

details of said agreement, pointing out that counsels merely

assist their clients and do not decide for them in a compromise

agreement. Respondent likewise averred that complainant was

not prejudiced by the dismissal of Civil Case No. B-259 for the

simple reason that the latter was no less the defendant therein

and it was the plaintiff who failed to prosecute the case for

a long period of time. In any event, respondent alleged that

the instant administrative complaint is simply complainants

reaction to his letter dated June 15, 20046relative to his

(respondents) act of having withdrawn as complainants

counsel in a different case pending before another court.

Complainant, in his Reply-Affidavit,7countered that he

contacted respondent several times regarding the submission

of the compromise agreement in Civil Case No. B-259. The first

was on October 20, 1999 at respondents residence as the

latter was not at his office at that time, in compliance with

respondentsletter requesting to see him. The second was on

April 19, 2000 when complainant went to respondents office

on account of another case, and there reminded the latter asto the compromise agreement but respondent just made the

assurance that he will be the one to make the draft and/or

prepare the same. The third was on January 12, 2001, again at

the respondents office where, after being reminded as to the

compromise agreement, respondent told him not to be in a

hurry because the court can wait for the compromise

agreement and besides he is quite busy with other court cases.

Denying that the administrative complaint is his reaction to

respondents letter dated June 15, 2004, complainant asserted

that said letter concerns another case in connection with which

he is preparing another administrative case against

respondent.

In his Rejoinder,8respondent denied that complainant

contacted and reminded him about the subject compromise

agreement, averring that any communication that has

happened between him and the complainant pertains to

another case. Respondent further averred that complainant ismerely attempting to besmirch his unsullied reputation as a

legal practitioner since 1975.

After the termination of the mandatory preliminary conference,

the parties were required to submit their respective position

papers with documentary exhibits and affidavits of witnesses, if

any, within twenty (20) days from notice, after which the case

shall be submitted for resolution.9

Eventually, on July 26, 2005, the IBP Investigating

Commissioner, Acerey C. Pacheco, submitted his Report and

Recommendation.10Said the Commissioner in his report:

It is a fact as established by the records that no compromise

agreement was submitted to the court despite the receipt of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt6


3/74



the Order dated September 25, 1998. While it is true that as

counsel, respondent do not decide for the complainant to

enter into such kind of agreement, respondent is however,

duty bound to assist the court in the speedy disposition of

cases.

xxx xxx xxx

Respondents asseveration that he waited for the complainant

to provide him with details of the compromise agreement but

the latter failed to come does not inspire belief in the face of

the denials made by the complainant. Not even a piece of

paper or letter requesting the complainant to provide him with

the details of the agreement was presented to substantiate

such allegation.

And even assuming arguendo that respondent indeed asked

the complainant of such details, the period of almost four (4)

years from September 25, 1998 (date of the Order requiring

the submission of the compromise agreement) up to August 5,

2002 (date of the Order dismissing the case for failure to

submit the same) without doing anything to avoid the casebeing left "hanging on the air" betrays respondents duty

towards the court. As an officer of the court whose primary

function is to assist the court in the impartial and speedy

adjudication of cases, respondent ought to be vigilant and

avoid any act or omission that only impedes and obstructs

speedy disposition of cases.

In the case at bar, the period of almost four (4) years of waiting

constitutes inaction that caused unnecessary delay in thedisposition of said cases. The fact that no damage or prejudice

was sustained by the complainant, he being the defendant in

that case, is of no moment.

Thus, the Commissioners recommendation:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

recommended that herein respondent be reprimanded for his

inaction over the period of almost four (4) years without doinganything and that a repetition of the same act to be dealt with

accordingly.11

On October 22, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors passed

Resolution No. XVII-2005-9012adopting and approving the

afore-quoted report and recommendation of the Investigating

Commissioner, to wit:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED

and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the

Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein

made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the

recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record

and the applicable laws and rules, and considering the almost
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt11


4/74



four years of inaction that caused delay in the disposition of

the cases, Atty. Enrique S. Empleo is hereby REPRIMANDED

and repetition of the same act shall be dealt with accordingly.

We are in full accord with the findings and recommendation ofthe Investigating Commissioner as adopted by the IBP Board

of Governors.

First and foremost among the duties of a lawyer is his duty to

the court. The chief mission of an attorney is to assist in the

administration of justice and to this end, his clients success in

the case is subordinate. As mandated in Canon 12 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility:

A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS

DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Like the court itself, a lawyer is an instrument to advance its

ends: the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive

adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final

judgments.13A lawyer should not only help attain these

objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper

practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization,

charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the

speedy and efficient administration of justice.14

True, a lawyer cannot enter into a compromise agreement

without his clients consent. Be it remembered, however, that a

lawyer is also an officer of the court with the correlative duty

to see to it that cases are disposed in the soonest possible

time.

Here, respondent, fully aware that there is a pending court

order for the submission of a compromise agreement, should

have taken pains to remind complainant about it and ascertain

the true intent of the latter regarding the same, so that he, as

complainants counsel, can make the necessary legal action in

order for the case not to be unduly delayed and appear not to

be indefinitely pending in the docket of the court concerned.

Moreover, by respondents inaction to the court order in Civil

Case No. B-259, he has very well violated his Attorneys Oath

to "obey the laws and legal orders of the duly constituted

authorities."

Lastly, we cannot but note that respondent's conduct relative

to the civil case in question likewise fell short of the diligence

required of his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility, which demands that a lawyer

shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03

of said Canon further states that a lawyer shall not neglect a

legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection

therewith shall render him liable.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6986_2006.html#fnt13


5/74



As complainants counsel in Civil Case No. B-259, it was

incumbent upon respondent to invite his clients attention as

to the compromise agreement, especially so when there is a

pending court order for the submission of the same. There is

nothing in the record which shows that respondent did

anything in this respect, even when, as per his admission, he

and complainant were in communication at that time, albeit,

with regards to another case.

Thus, by just letting the court order for the submission of a

compromise agreement in Civil Case No. B-259 remain

unacted upon resulting in the pendency of that case for almost

four (4) years until its dismissal for the parties non-compliance, respondent sorely failed to perform what is

required of him as a lawyer and a member of the Bar.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Enrique Empleo is hereby

REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same

or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

CANON 12 RULE 12.02

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5469. August 10, 2004]

RICARDO A. FORONDA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNOLD V.GUERRERO, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

The instant disbarment case arose when Ricardo A. Foronda,

acting as attorney-in-fact for Ramona Patricia Alcaraz and

Concepcion D. Alcaraz, filed a verified Letter-Complaint[1]dated

June 29, 2001 with the Office of the Bar Confidant charging

Atty. Arnold V. Guerrero with abusing procedural rules to

defeat the ends of substantial justice by filing appeals,

complaints and petitions to frustrate and delay the execution

of a judgment.

The Antecedents

The complainant alleged that his principals, Ramona and

Concepcion Alcaraz, filed Civil Case No. Q-44134 entitled

Concepcion Alcaraz, et al. v. Romeo Coronel, et al.for specific

performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 83. The case involved a parcel of land

which the defendants therein sold to the Alcarazes, and,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn1


6/74



thereafter, while the case was pending, to Catalina Balais-

Mabanag. Assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag, and

with the respondent as their lawyer, Catalina intervened in the

case.

On March 1, 1989, the RTC rendered a Decision [2]in favor of

the plaintiffs, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment for specific performance is hereby

rendered ordering defendant to execute in favor of plaintiffs a

deed of absolute sale covering that parcel of land embraced in

and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 327403 (now

TCT No. 331582) of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City,

together with all the improvements existing thereon, free from

all liens and encumbrances and once accomplished, to

immediately deliver said document of sale to plaintiffs, and

upon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pay

defendants the whole balance of the purchase price

amounting toP1,190,000.00 in cash. Transfer Certificate of Title

No. 331582 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the

name of intervenor is hereby cancelled and declared to be

without any force and effect. Defendants and intervenor, and

all other persons claiming under them, are hereby ordered to

vacate the subject property and deliver possession thereof to

plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim for damages and attorneys fees, as

well as the counterclaims of defendants and intervenors, are

hereby dismissed.

No pronouncement as to costs.

So ordered.[3]

The Mabanag Spouses, through the respondent as their

counsel, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals,

docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 23000. In its

Decision[4]promulgated on December 16, 1991, the Court of

Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. Unsatisfied

with the judgment of the appellate court, the respondent

elevated the matter to this Court, docketed as G.R. No.

103577. The petition for review was dismissed, and the

judgment appealed from was, likewise, affirmed in toto in the

Courts Decision[5]dated October 7, 1996.[6]The Court found

that the questioned sale of the parcel of land between therein

petitioners and Mabanag on February 18, 1985 was correctly

upheld by both courts below.

Thereafter, according to the complainant, the respondent,

acting for and in behalf of his clients, the Mabanag Spouses,

filed several cases[7]questioning the ruling of the Court in G.R.

No. 103577. The complainant contended that the multiplepleadings and actions pursued by the respondent indicate that

he violated his oath as an officer of the court and breached the

Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The

complainant thereafter prayed that the instant complaint be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn2


7/74



referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for proper

investigation and action.[8]

The Respondents Defense

The respondent, for his part, filed a Motion to Cite

Complainant and Counsel in Contempt Without Prejudice to

Disciplinary Action Against Counsel,[9]alleging that in an

attempt to cause disrepute, dishonor and to cast aspersion on

him, the complainants counsel virtually published and made

known publicly the instant administrative case against him by

filing a Manifestation in Civil Case No. Q-01-43396 before the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80. According to

the respondent, this grossly violated the confidentiality in

administrative proceedings.[10]

In his Comment,[11]the respondent did not deny that the

decision in Civil Case No. Q-44134 was already final and

executory, as it had already been affirmed by the Court of

Appeals and the Supreme Court in their respective

decisions. The respondent put forth the following arguments

to justify the dismissal of the instant complaint:

A. THE SUBSEQUENT CASES FILED INVOLVED LEGITIMATE

AND VALID RESORT TO JUDICIAL PROCESSES AND REMEDIES;

HENCE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE CHARGE THAT THE

RESPONDENT COUNSEL HAS ABUSED PROCEDURAL

PROCESSES TO DEFEAT THE ENDS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

B. THE COMPLAINT MUST AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON

THE GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING AND VIOLATION OF

SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

C. THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CASE IS PREMATURECONSIDERING THAT THE MATTERS RAISED THEREIN ARE

STILL ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN PENDING CASES; HENCE, ITS

OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATELY CALLED FOR AND

WARRANTED.[12]

The respondent was vehement in denying that he abused legal

processes and remedies, as the issues raised in the subsequent

actions he filed were valid and meritorious, the resolution of

which were indispensable for the orderly administration of

justice. Thus:

It is basic that a counsel may resort to all legal reliefs and

remedies available and to invoke all pertinent provisions of the

law and rules, to protect the interest of a client in order that

justice may be done and duly administered. In fact, it is not

only the right of a counsel to do so but rather, it is his

bounden and sacred obligation as an officer of the court andas an advocate who is tasked to protect the interest of a client

within the bounds of law.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn8


8/74



Thus, in Civil Case No. Q-91-31268,with the Regional Trial

Court of Quezon City,which is the first complaint, what was

challenged therein is the eligibility of Ramona Patricia Alcaraz,

to own urban commercial lands, within the ambit of Batas

Pambansa Blg. 185, considering that she is nota Filipino

citizen or at least, she does not appear nor was she alleged to

be so. Evidently, therefore, this is not intended to forestall the

execution of the judgment which must be executed, pursuant

to the rules that is, in accordance with the dispositive portion

thereof. Otherwise stated, the execution, if it must be

undertaken, must be made in accordance with and consistently

(sic) the dispositive portion thereof. It is well settled that

execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in thedispositive portion of the decision.

As shown in the earlier narrations, the foregoing case is

presently on appeal with the Honorable Court of Appeals and

is still pending thereat, up to the present.

With regards to the petition for certiorari filed with the

Honorable Court of Appeals, docketed thereat as CA-G.R. SP

No. 4770 (sic), whereby a decision was already rendered and

such decision is already final and executory, the issues therein

disposed as raised, pertinently pertained to the questioned

and assailed Orders of the trial court which granted the writ of

execution, upon motion of parties who are purportedly the

principals of the complainant and his counsel. After the denial

of the said petition and the finality of the judgment of such

denial, partial execution ensued and was not of course, even

attempted to be forestalled by the herein respondent counsel

and his clients.

However, the execution being undertaken later on was shown

to have been exceeded when, despite the fact that there is no

showing that the parties who were supposed to execute a

deed of absolute sale pursuant to the dispositive portion of

the subject decision being sought to be implemented, had

refused or at least failed, after demand, to so execute and

perform the foregoing acts, the trial court ordered its branch

clerk of court to perform the said acts. In fact, it was pointedout that it does not even appear that the other parties whose

acts are sought, were already served with the writ of execution;

hence, the trial courts act was without basis and/or

premature. Nevertheless, the trial courts branch clerk of court

notwithstanding, proceeded as in fact, executed the deed of

absolute sale in favor of the Alcarazes. This act of the trial

court, with due respect, unduly created chaos and confusion,

which are antithetical to its function for an orderlyadministration of justice and the fair approximation thereof.

The matter was, thereafter, complicated further, when despite

the fact that the citizenships of the Alcarazes were not

indicated in the deed of absolute sale which appears to have

been presented with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, the


9/74



said Register of Deeds cancelled the title of the client of the

herein respondent counsel and issued a new title over the

subject property in favor of the Alcarazes and in order to

validate and to give a semblance of legality or color to the

validity of the issuance of the said title, by making it appear

that the Alcarazes are Filipino citizens, ALTHOUGH THERE IS

NO INDICATION OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP IN THE SUBJECT DEED

OF ABSOLUTE SALE, nevertheless, indicated in the new title

that the Alcarazes are Filipinos.

Thus, the herein respondent counsel, in behalf of his client and

to protect their interest, this time, was constrained to institute

a petition with the Honorable Court of Appeals, docketedas CA-G.R. SP No. 55576,whereby they assailed the

jurisdiction of the trial judge in decreeing the foregoing

execution of acts not included in the disposition portion of the

decision being sought to be executed and to perform acts

within the exclusive competence and direction of the Register

of Deeds pursuant to Providential Decree No. 1529, otherwise

known as the Board Registration Decree. This case is still

pending with the Honorable Court of Appeals up to thepresent; hence, it is misleading for the complainant to even

insinuate that a decision thereon is already final, which, of

course, as shown in the earlier discussions, are farthest from

the truth.

While all of the foregoing issues were still pending as they are

still pending up to the present, the complainant and counsel,

purportedly sold and transferred the subject property, using

the title being assailed and questioned in CA-G.R. SP No.

55576, to a third person, one Emelita Mariano, with the

purported deed of absolute sale being notarized by the same

counsel of the herein complainant, Atty. Oscar R. Ferrer, who is

representing the Alcarazes in the abovesaid cases; hence, he

cannot feign ignorance of the pendency of the said cases and

the issues involved therein which cast questions on the said

title and, thus, rendered the purported transfer or sale fatally

defective.

True to his duty to his client and as an officer of the court and

in order to maintain the integrity, dignity and orderliness in the

administration of justice, herein respondent counsel, filed in

behalf of his client, the Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-01-

43396, on February 15, 2001,with the Regional Trial Court

of Quezon City,for the annulment of the title issued in favor

of the third person, Emelita L. Mariano, for the annulment of

the Deed of Absolute Sale to her and Damages with prayer fora temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary

injunction.

When no temporary restraining order and/or writ of

preliminary injunction were issued by the trial court, herein

respondent counsel, in behalf of his client, availed of the


10/74



legally available remedy of a special civil action of certiorari,

assailing on jurisdictional/grave abuse of discretion grounds,

the refusal and/or failure of the trial court to issue the prayed

for preliminary injunctive reliefs, among others. Thus,

respondent, as counsel for his client, filed with the Honorable

Court of Appeals, on July 24, 2001, a petition for certiorari

and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order

and/or writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP

No. 65783,which is still pending resolution of the said

Honorable Court up to the present.[13]

The respondent also alleged that the complainants failure to

disclose the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-01-43396 in thecertification against non-forum shopping in the case at bar

was in gross violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure. Because of this, the respondent reasoned, the

complaint should be dismissed.

Finally, the respondent averred that the instant administrative

case is premature, considering that there are still issues to be

resolved in the pending cases. As such, no cause of action

could accrue against him. The respondent prayed that the

complaint be dismissed for utter and palpable lack of merit.

In his Compliance and Comment,[14]the complainant asserted

that there was no malice nor inaccuracy resorted to in the

filing of the complaint against the respondent. The

complainant averred that he was constrained to file the instant

complaint out of exasperation, if not desperation, upon the

instruction of his principals, so as to stop the respondent from

continuing with his dilatory and obstructionist strategies to

deprive them of their rights already confirmed by the courts,

from the RTC to the Supreme Court. Thus:

In order to stall the execution of the favorable decision

obtained by my principals Concepcion Alcaraz and her

daughter Ramona Patricia Alcaraz as early as March 1, 1989, in

Civil Case No. Q-44134, respondent acting in behalf of his

clients, went to this Court three (3) times in said case and

several times also to the Court of Appeals on appeals, petitionsfor certiorari, etc.

Although respondent admits the fact that the subject

decision of the court a quo is already final and executory, he

insists that the issues in the other cases are indeed different.

He argues in his comment that the issue in his petition (Annex

2 to Comment) pertained to the issuance of a writ of

execution to implement the abovesaid final and executory

decision. This is plain hair-splitting aimed to muddle the

issues and ultimately mislead the Honorable Court.[15]

The Recommendation of the Integrated Bar OfThe Philippines (IBP)

Commission On Bar Discipline
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn13


11/74



On October 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed

Resolution No. XVI-2003-237, finding that the foregoing

recommendation of the Commissioner was fully supported by

the records, as well as the applicable laws. The Board found

that the respondent violated Rule 12.02 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, and recommended his suspension

for one (1) year.

The Courts Ruling

At the outset, the Court would like to stress that administrative

cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.[16]As we

held in the leading case of In re Almacen:[17]

Neither purely civil not purely criminal, they do not involve a

trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the

Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being

intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal

prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a

prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu

proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real

question for determination is whether or not the attorney isstill a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in

the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls

upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an

officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the

purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest

administration of justice by purging the profession of

members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves

no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and

responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. .[18]

As such, the instant complaint cannot be dismissed as prayed

for by the respondent.

We agree that the respondent is administratively liable.

The respondent, by his own admission, filed multifarious

petitions, motions and actions concerning the sale of the

property in question, after the Court already ruled in G.R. No.

103577 that the said sale was correctly upheld by both the trialand appellate courts. He, thereafter, filed two other initiatory

pleadings before the RTC of Quezon City, namely, Civil Case

No. Q-97-31268 and Civil Case No. Q-01-43396. The same

matter subject of the original complaint was elevated to the

Court of Appeals no less than four (4) times: CA-G.R. CV No.

65124, CA-G.R. SP No. 65783, CA-G.R. CV No. 75911, and CA-

G.R. SP No. 55576. And from there, the matter was again

brought before this Court twice: G.R. No. 135820 and G.R. No.153142.[19]

We concur with the following observations made by IBP

Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala in her Report and

Recommendation dated October 3, 2003:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn16


12/74



The issue being raised by the respondent on behalf of his

clients in all the complaints, appeals, petitions and motions he

has filed is the question of non-eligibility of Ramona Alcaraz to

acquire property in thePhilippines and the nullity of the sale

between Alcaraz and the Coronels. These issues have already

been passed upon and upheld by both the Court of Appeals

and the Supreme Court. In the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP

No. 65783, the First Division of the Court of Appeals observed

that Mabanags counsel, (respondent herein) has questioned

the non-eligibility of Ramona Alcaraz to acquire property in

the Philippines for the nth time although as early as 30 July

1998, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47710 had

already affirmed the lower courts ruling that the petitioner is

not the proper party to question the eligibility of Alcaraz to

own property in the Philippines. The petition for review on

certiorari before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 135820 upheld

the right of Ramona Alcaraz as one of the vendees in the deed

of sale. The Supreme Court passed judgment on her capacity

to buy the property. The issue was recycled in CA-G.R. SP No.

55576, Entry of Judgment was already issued by the Supreme

Court on 2 January 1997. However, petitioner has succeededfor more than five (5) years now to hold at bay the full

implementation of the judgment in point.Likewise, in

dismissing the complaint filed by respondent on behalf of his

client before RTC QC Branch 83 docketed as Case No. Q-97-

31268 entitled Mabanag vs. Patricia Ramona Alcaraz, et. al. to

declare Patricia Alcaraz ineligible to acquire real property, the

court observed that for failure of the plaintiffs to get afavorable decision of the earlier case, they tried to prevent

the execution by disqualifying herein defendant.(Emphasis

ours).

In the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP [No.] 65783, a pertinent

portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads While lawyers

owe (sic) entire devotion to the interest of their clients right,

they should not forget that they are officers of the court

bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice they should not, therefore, misuse

the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or undulydelay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse

the court processes (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park

Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 622).[20]

It has, thus, been clearly established that in filing such

numerous petitions in behalf of his client, the respondent

thereby engaged in forum shopping. The essence of forum

shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same

parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or

successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable

judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in

one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or

when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings

grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn20


13/74



obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in

determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation

caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of

similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[21]

Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it

should not be at the expense of truth and the administration

of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a

lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying

a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing

court processes.[22]Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes

abuse of the Courts processes and improper conduct thattends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of

justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to

add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions

(which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory

judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for

incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful

violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good

fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions asappear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and

honor.[23]

We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the

interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients

right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost,

officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the

speedy and efficient administration of justice.[24]

In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the

same subject matter, the respondent violated Canon 12 of theCode of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a

lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist

in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also

violated Rule 12.02[25]and Rule 12.04[26]of the Code, as well as

a lawyers mandate to delay no man for money or malice.

We find that the IBPs recommended penalty of one years

suspension from the practice of law is not commensurate to

the respondents transgression. He shall thus be meted a two-

year suspension from the practice of law, effective

immediately.

WHEREFORE, for trifling with judicial processes by resorting to

forum shopping, respondent Atty. Arnold V. Guerrero is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Two (2)

Years. The respondent is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the

date of his receipt of this Decision. Let a copy of this Decisionbe included in the respondents files which are with the Office

of the Bar Confidant, and circularized to all courts and to the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/ac_5469.htm#_ftn21


14/74



Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-

Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales,

Azcuna, Tinga, andChico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

EN BANC

MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN,

Complainant,

A.C. No. 3731

Present:

PUNO, C.J.,

QUISUMBING,

YNARES-SANTIAGO,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

CARPIO,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CORONA,

- versus - CARPIO MORALES,

AZCUNA,

TINGA,

CHICO-NAZARIO,

GARCIA,

VELASCO, JR.,

NACHURA, and

REYES, JJ.

ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR, Promulgated:

Respondent. September 7, 2007

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - x


15/74



D E C I S I O N

CARPIO,J.:

The Case

On 18 October 1991, Manuel S. Sebastian (complainant)

filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily

A. Bajar (respondent) for obstructing, disobeying, resisting,rebelling, and impeding final decisions of Regional Trial Courts,

the Court of Appeals and of the Honorable Supreme Court,

and also for submitting those final decisions for the review and

reversal of the DARAB, an administrative body, and for

contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics.

The Facts

Complainant alleged the following:

1. Respondent is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal

Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform who

represented Fernando Tanlioco (Tanlioco) in numerous cases

which raised the same issues.[1]Tanlioco is an agricultural

lessee of a land owned by complainants spouse and sister-in-

law (landowners). The landowners filed an Ejectment case

against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the land

use from agricultural to residential. The Regional Trial Court

(RTC) rendered judgment

ordering Tanliocosejectment subject to the payment of

disturbance compensation.[2]The RTCsjudgment was affirmed

by the Court of Appeals[3]and the Supreme Court.[4]

2. Respondent, as Tanliocoscounsel, filed another case for

Specific Performance to produce the conversion order. The

RTC dismissed the complaint due to resjudicata and lack of

cause of action.[5]

3. Respondent filed a case for Maintenance of Possession

with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.

The case raised the same issues of conversion and disturbance

compensation.[6]

4. Respondent has violated Rule 10.03 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility since she misused the rules of

procedure through forum-shopping to obstruct the

administration of justice.[7]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn1


16/74



On 18 November 1991, the Court issued a resolution

requiring respondent to comment on the complaint lodged

against her.[8]

After a second Motion for Extension of Time to Submit

Comment,[9]respondent submitted her Comment alleging the

following:

1. Complainant is not the real party-in-interest. He is also

not authorized to prosecute the disbarment suit.[10]

2. Respondent has fulfilled allegiance to the Attorneys

Oath and performed duties in accordance with Section 20 of

Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.[11]

3. Respondents client, Tanlioco, merely availed of all legal

remedies to obtain benefits secured for him by law.[12]

On 10 March 1992, complainant filed his Reply.

Complainant alleged that respondent did not confront the

issues of her disbarment squarely but raised issues that weredecided upon with finality by the courts.[13]

On 25 March 1992, the Court issued a Resolution

requiring respondent to file a Rejoinder within 10 days from

notice.[14]

On 3 June 1992, complainant filed a Manifestation

dated 2 June 1992 stating that respondent failed to comply

with the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution to file a Rejoinder.[15]

On 7 October 1992, the Court ordered respondent to

show cause why she should not be subjected to disciplinary

action for failure to comply with the Courts25 March

1992 Resolution. The Court also required respondent to

Comment on the complainants 2 June 1992 Manifestation.[16]

On 3 February 1993, respondent filed a Manifestation

alleging that she had substantially complied with the Courts

orders relative to her defenses. She advised the Court that she

had transferred to the Public Attorneys Office and since she

was no longer a BALA lawyer, the cases involved in this

proceeding had become moot and academic.[17]

On 1 March 1993, the Court issued a Resolution stating

that the administrative case against respondent has notbeen

mooted and nothing set out in her Manifestation excuses her

failure to obey this Courts Resolutions of 25 March 1992 and 7

October 1992.[18]The Court had also resolved to impose a fine

of P500 or imprisonment of five days and to require

respondent to comply with the 25 March 1992 and 7 October

1992 Resolutions.[19]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn8


17/74



On 24 August 1993, complainant filed a Manifestation

stating that respondent had not complied with the Courts

orders.[20]

On 29 September 1993, the Court issued a Resolution

ordering the arrest of respondent for detention at the National

Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for five days. The Court reiterated

that respondent should comply with the 25 March 1992 and 7

October 1992 Resolutions.[21]

On 20 October 1993, the NBI arrested respondent. The

NBI detained respondent for five days and released her on 25

October 1993.[22]

On 10 November 1993, the Court issued a Resolution

referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

for hearing and decision.[23]

On 11 November 1993, respondent filed a Rejoinder.Respondent claimed that complainant had no legal personality

to file this case.[24]Respondent also alleged that she was

merely protecting the interest of Tanlioco as she was sworn to

do so in her oath of office. Respondent contended that she

had comported herself as [an] officer of the court, at the risk of

being disciplined by the latter if only to impart truth and

justice.[25]

On 22 November 1995, Investigating

Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose (Investigating Commissioner

Jose) submitted his report and recommendation to the

IBP.Investigating Commissioner Jose enumerated respondents

violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility that

rendered her unfit to continue the practice of law:

1. Respondent appealed a case for purposes of delay

which amounted to an obstruction of justice.[26]

2. Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts.

The duplication or multiplication of suits should be

avoided,[27]and respondents acts were tantamount to forum-

shopping which is a reprehensible manipulation of court

processes and proceedings.[28]

3. Respondent uttered disrespectful language and shoutedat everybody during the hearing on 25 May 1995.[29]The want

of intention is not an excuse for the disrespectful language

used.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn20


18/74



On 4 October 1996, the IBP transmitted to the Court a

copy of IBP Resolution No. XII-96-149 dated 30 March 1996.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved

Investigating Commissioner Joses recommendation that

respondent be SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice

of law for Unethical Practices and attitude showing her

propensity and incorrigible character to violate the basic tenets

and requirements of the Code of Professional Responsibility

rendering her unfit to continue in the practice of

law.[30]Governor Angel R. Gonzales recommended her

outright disbarment.[31]

In its 20 January 1997 Resolution, the Court noted the

IBP Resolution suspending respondent indefinitely.[32]

On 13 April 1999, the Court issued a Resolution directing

the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to circularize the

resolution of the IBP dated 30 March 1996 suspending

respondent indefinitely from the practice of law.[33]

On 7 June 1999, the OCA, through Court Administrator

Alfredo L. Benipayo, issued Circular No. 30-99 informing all

courts that respondent had been suspended indefinitely.

On 30 January 2003, respondent filed a Motion to

Consider the Case Closed and Terminated. Respondent

apologized for her demeanor and prayed that the suspension

be lifted.[34]

On 16 June 2003, the Court issued a Resolution referring

the case to the IBP for report and recommendation.[35]

On 29 August 2003, Investigating

Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval (Investigating

Commissioner Raval) conducted a hearing. Respondent

claimed that she did not receive any notice of

the OCAsCircular on her indefinite

suspension.[36] Respondent alleged that the Court Resolution

which she received merely noted the IBPs Resolution on her

indefinite suspension.[37] Respondent claimed that she only

knew of the suspension when she filed an application for a

judicial position in Mandaluyong City.[38]

In the hearing, respondent admitted that she continued

to practice law as a Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City despiteher suspension because she believed that a notation by the

Court in the 20 January 1997 Resolution did not mean an

implementation of the IBPs Resolution on her indefinite

suspension.[39]


19/74



Due to the absence of complainant and his counsel,

another hearing was held on 19 September 2003.

Complainants counsel asserted that respondent had been

practicing law in the midst of her suspension and this

constituted a violation of the suspension order which she

wanted to be lifted.[40] Investigating Commissioner Ravalasked

respondent to present a valid ground to lift the suspension

order.[41]Respondent requested that her detention for five

days at the NBI be converted into a five-year suspension, one

year for every day of detention such that she would have

served five years of indefinite suspension.[42]

Investigating Commissioner Raval then directed the

parties to file simultaneously their Verified Position Papers.[43]

In his Position Paper and Comment, complainant posited

that respondents motion did not state valid grounds to

convince the Court to lift the suspension order. Complainant

stated that by continuing to practice law, she is flaunting her

defiance of the Supreme Court by showing that she can

hoodwink another branch of government.[44]Complainant alsoprayed for respondents disbarment due to the gravity of her

offense.[45]

In respondents Position Paper, she reiterated that

complainant is not the real party-in-interest since the property

that was litigated was owned by complainants wife. She

asserted that she never betrayed her clients cause, she was

never unfaithful to her oath, and it was complainant who filed

this case for harassment. Respondent prayed that the case be

considered closed and terminated due to lack of merit.[46]

Respondent also sent a letter to Investigating

Commissioner Raval and attached a copy of a Resolution in a

Preliminary Investigation case which she handled. Respondent

contended that in this Preliminary Investigation case, she

recommended its dismissal because the offended party was

not the real party-in-interest.[47]

Respondent insisted that complainant did not have the

personality to file the disbarment complaint against her; hence,

it should have been dismissed outright.[48]

After the parties filed their position papers, the IBP Board

of Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2004-229 dated 16

April 2004. The IBP adopted Investigating

Commissioner RavalsReport and Recommendation thatrespondent be disbarred for her manifest flagrant misconduct

in disobeying the SC Order of her Indefinite Suspension.[49]

As culled from the records, the Court had merely noted

IBP Resolution No. XII-96-149 which recommended


20/74



respondents indefinite suspension. The term noted means

that the Court has merely taken cognizance of the existence of

an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious

deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter it does

not imply agreement or approval.[50] Hence, the penalty of

indefinite suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors

has not attained finality. Section 12 of Rule 139-B provides:

Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.

x x x

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total

membership, determines that the respondent should be

suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a

resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations

which, together with the whole record of the case, shall

forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final

action. (Emphasis supplied)

Necessarily, the Court will now give its final action on

this complaint.

The Ruling of the Court

After a careful review of the records, the Court finds the

evidence on record sufficient to support the IBPs

findings. However, the Court disagrees with the penalty

imposed on respondent.

Administrative proceedings against lawyers

are sui generis[51]and they belong to a class of their

own.[52] They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather

investigations by the Court into the conduct of its

officer.[53]They involve no private interest and afford no

redress for private grievance.[54]

A disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to

protect the administration of justice from the misconduct of its

officers. This Court requires that its officers shall be

competent, honorable, and reliable men in whom the public

may repose confidence.[55]Lawyers must at all times faithfully

perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to

their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and

norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of

Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court

may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private

misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character,honesty, probity, and good demeanor or to be unworthy to

continue as officers of the Court.[56]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn50


21/74



Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the

imposition of the penalty in disbarment or suspension

proceedings.[57]

The evidence presented shows that respondent failed to

comply with the Courts lawful orders in twoinstances:

1. In the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution, respondent

was required to file a rejoinder within 10 days from notice.

However, she only submitted the rejoinder on 11 November

1993 after she was detained at the NBI for five days for failure

to heed the Courts order.

2. In the 7 October 1992 Court Resolution, respondent

was required to comment on complainants manifestation. She

instead submitted a manifestation on 3 February 1993 or

almost four months thereafter. In her manifestation,

respondent alleged that she had substantially complied with

the Courts orders. However, the Court in its 1 March 1993

Resolution stated that nothing set out in respondents

manifestation excused her failure to obey the CourtsResolutions.

These acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful

orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138[58]of the

Rules of Court is in itself a sufficient cause for suspension or

disbarment. Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly

ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter

disrespect to the judicial institution.[59]Respondents conduct

indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution

is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be

complied with partially, inadequately, or

selectively.[60]Respondents obstinate refusal to comply with

the Courts orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her

character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Courts

lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.[61]

Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and

processes and respondents deference is underscored by the

fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not

only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions

as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer

than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to

show respect to their processes.[62]

Respondents failure to comply with the Courts directive

to file a Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes grossmisconduct. The Court defined gross misconduct as any

inexcusable, shameful, flagrant, or unlawful conduct on the

part of the person concerned in the administration of justice

which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right

determination of a cause. It is a conduct that is generally
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/3731%20.htm#_ftn57


22/74



motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional

purpose.[63]

In Bernal Jr. v. Fernandez,[64]the Court held that failure to

comply with the Courts directive to comment on a letter-

complaint constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination,

or disrespect. In Cuizon v. Macalino,[65]a lawyers failure to

comply with the Courts Resolutions requiring him to file his

comment was one of the infractions that merited his

disbarment.

Furthermore, respondents defenses are untenable.

Firstly, respondent contends that complainant is not the real

party-in-interest since the property that was litigated was

owned by complainants wife. The Court is not persuaded with

this defense.

The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil

proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate

the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In fact, the personwho called the attention of the court to a lawyers misconduct

canon 12 and 13 (including rules) -- illustrative cases

Documents