pale part 1 full cases

8/9/2019 PALE Part 1 Full Cases

1/128

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.M. No. 2385 March 8, 1989

JOSE TOLOSA, complainant,vs.ALFREDO CARGO, responent.

R ! S O " # T I O N

FELICIANO, J.:

On $ %pril &'(), complainant *ose Tolosa file +ith the ourt an %ffiavit- omplaint ate $March &'() seein/ the isbarment of responent District iti0ens1 %ttorne2 %lfreo ar/o forimmoralit2. omplainant claime that responent ha been seein/ his 3complainant1s4 +ifePriscilla M. Tolosa in his house an else+here. omplainant further alle/e that in *une &'(&,his +ife left his con5u/al home an +ent to live +ith responent at No. 67 Sisa Street, 8arrioTene5eros, Malabon, Metro Manila an that since then has been livin/ +ith responent at thataress.

ompl2in/ +ith an orer of this ourt, responent file a 9omment an:or %ns+er9 ate &;Ma2 &'() en2in/ the alle/ations of complainant. Responent acno+le/e thatcomplainant1s +ife ha been seein/ him but that she ba one so in the course of seein/avice from responent 3in vie+ of the continuous cruelt2 an un+arrante marital accusationsof affiant uentl2sou/ht the avice of responent an of his +ife an mother as to +hat to o about the9continuous >uarrels bet+een affiant an his +ife an the beatin/s an ph2sical in5uries3sometimes less serious4 that the latter sustaine from the former.9 3Rollo, p. (4.

omplainant file a Repl2 ate &? *une &'() to responent1s 9omment an:or %ns+er9 anmae a number of further alle/ations, to +it@

3a4 That complainant1s +ife +as not the onl2 mistress thatresponent ha taenA

3b4 That responent ha pai for the hospital an meical bills ofcomplainant1s +ife last Ma2 &'(&, an visite her at the hospitalever2a2A

3c4 That he ha several times presse his +ife to stop seein/responent but that she ha refuse to o soA


2/128

34 That she ha ac>uire ne+ househol an electricalappliances +here she +as livin/ althou/h she ha no means oflivelihooA an

3e4 That responent +as pa2in/ for his +ife1s house rent.

Responent file a Re5oiner on &' *ul2 &'(), en2in/ the further alle/ations of complainant,an statin/ that he 3responent4 ha merel2 /iven complainant1s +ife the amount of P;7.BB b2+a2 of financial assistance urin/ her confinement in the hospital.

82 a Resolution ate )' *ul2 &'(), the ourt referre this case to the Solicitor Ceneral forinvesti/ation, report an recommenation. The Solicitor Ceneral1s office hel a number ofhearin/s +hich too place from )& October &'() until &'(?, at +hich hearin/s complainant anresponent presente evience both testimonial an ocumentar2.

The Solicitor Ceneral summe up +hat complainant sou/ht to establish in the follo+in/ terms@

&. That responent ha been courtin/ his +ife, Priscilla 3tsn, Ma2&), &'(), p. '4.

). That he actuall2 sa+ them to/ether holin/ hans in l'(B inubao an Sto. Domin/o, ue0on it2 3tsn, pp. &;-&7, Ma2 &),&'(;4.

;. That sometime in *une, &'(), his +ife left their con5u/al houseat No. & "ope0 *aena Street, Calas, ue0on it2, to live +ithresponent at No. 67 Sisa Street, 8arrio Tene5eros, Malabon,Metro Manila 3tsn, pp. &?- &$, Ma2 &), &'(;4.

6. That +hile Priscilla +as sta2in/ there, she ac>uire householappliances +hich she coul not affor to bu2 as she has no sourceof income 3tsn, pp. &B-&&, Sept. &B, &'(7, !Eh. 1M1, N1 an 114.

7. That +hen Priscilla +as hospitali0e in Ma2, &'(), at the F!#Hospital, responent pai for her eEpenses an too care of her3tsn, pp. &(-)B, *une &7, &'(;4. In fact, an incient bet+eenresponent an complainant too place in sai hospital 3tsn, pp. 7-(, Sept. )B, &'(;, !Ehibits 11 an 1-l14.

?. That an incient +hich +as sub5ect of a complaint too placeinvolvin/ responent an complainant at No. 67 Sisa Street,

8arrio Tene5eros, Malabon, Metro Manila 3tsn, pp. (- &B, *ul2 )',&'(;A !Eh. 181, 18-l1 an 1G14.

$. That a/ain in ue0on it2, incients involvin/ responent ancomplainant +ere brou/ht to the attention of the police 3!Ehibits 1F1an 1C14.


3/128

(. That omplainant file an aministrative case for immoralit2a/ainst responent +ith the "%O an that responent +assuspene for one 2ear 3!Ehibits 1D1 an 1!14. 3Rollo, pp. ;;-;74.

Responent1s efenses +ere summari0e b2 the Solicitor Ceneral in the follo+in/ manner@

a4 That Priscilla use to see responent for avice re/arin/ herifficult relationship +ith complainantA that Priscilla left complainantbecause she suffere maltreatment, ph2sical in5uries an publichumiliation inflicte or cause b2 complainantA

b4 That responent +as not courtin/ Priscilla, nor live +ith her atNo. 67 Sisa St., Tene5eros, Malabon, Metro ManilaA that the o+nerof the house +here Priscilla live in Malabon +as a frien anformer client +hom responent visite no+ an thenA

c4 That responent onl2 /ave P;7.BB to Priscilla in the F!#Hospital, as assistance in her meical eEpensesA that hereprimane complainant for l2in/ on the be of Priscilla in thehospital +hich le to their bein/ investi/ate b2 the securit2/uars of the hospitalA

4 That it is not true that he +as +ith Priscilla holin/ hans +ithher in ubao or Sto. Domin/o hurch in &'(BA

e4 That Priscilla bou/ht all the appliances in her apartment at 67Sisa Street, Tene5eros, Malabon, Metro Manila from her earnin/sA

f4 That it is not true that he ran after complainant an trie to stab

him at No. & Calas St., ue0on it2A that sai incient +asbet+een Priscilla1s brother an complainantA

/4 That it is also not true that he is al+a2s in 67 Sisa St.,Tene5eros, Malabon, Metro Manila an:or he ha a >uarrel +ithcomplainant at 67 Sisa St., MalabonA that the >uarrel +as bet+eenPriscilla1s brother, !/aro Miclat, an complainantA thatresponent +ent there onl2 to intervene upon re>uest ofcomplainant1s +ife 3see tsn, *une )&, &'(64. 3Rollo, pp. ;7-;$4.

The Solicitor Ceneral then submitte the follo+in/

F I N D I N C S

&. That complainant an Priscilla are spouses resiin/ at No.&"ope0 *aena St., Calas, ue0on it2.

). That responent1s +ife +as their 1ninan/1 at their marria/e, anthe2 3complainant an Priscilla4 consiere responent also their1ninon/1.


4/128

;. That responent an complainant are nei/hbors, theirresiences bein/ one house a+a2 from each other.

6. That responent amitte that Priscilla use to see him foravice, because of her ifferences +ith complainant.

7. That Priscilla, in fact, left their con5u/al house an live at No.67 Sisa St., 8arrio Tene5eros, Malabon, Metro ManilaA that theo+ner of the house +here Priscilla live in Malabon is a frien anformer client of responent.

?. That Priscilla inee ac>uire appliances +hile she +as sta2in/in Malabon.

$. That incients involvin/ responent an complainant hainee happene.

(. That Priscilla returne to her mother1s house later in &'(; atNo. & "ope0 *aena St., Calas, ue0on it2A but complainant +assta2in/ t+o or three houses a+a2 in his mother1s house.

'. That complainant file an aministrative case for immoralit2a/ainst responent in "%O, +here responent +as foun /uilt2an suspene for one 2ear. 3Rollo, pp. ;$-;'4.

In effect, the Solicitor Ceneral foun that complainant1s char/es of immoralit2 ha not beensustaine b2 sufficient evience.%t the same time, ho+ever, the Solicitor Ceneral foun that theresponent ha not been able to eEplain satisfactoril2 the follo+in/@

&. Responent1s failure to avoi seein/ Priscilla, in spite ofcomplainant1s suspicion an:or 5ealous2 that he +as havin/ anaffair +ith his +ife.

). Priscilla1s bein/ able to rent an apartment in Malabon +hoseo+ner is amittel2 a frien an former client of responent.

;. Responent1s failure to avoi /oin/ to Malabon to visit hisfrien, in spite of his ifferences +ith complainant.

6. Responent1s failure to avoi /ettin/ involve invariousincients involvin/ complainant an Priscilla1s brothers 3!Ehs. 181,

8-&1, 1F1, 1C1,


5/128

co)'"a!-a-&,thereb2 ca0*!- 'o**!+"# &ro0+"# !- &h# co)'"a!-a-&* a)!"(,% /h!ch+#ha!or /a* %0-+#co)!- o a "a/(#r a-$ a- o!c#r o &h# co0r&.%3Rollo, p. 6B4. TheSolicitor Ceneral recommene that responent %tt2. %lfreo ar/o be suspene from thepractice of la+ for three 3;4 months an be severel2 reprimane.

e a/ree +ith the Solicitor Ceneral that the recor oes not contain sufficient evience to sho+

that responent ha inee been cohabitin/ +ith complainant1s +ife or +as other+ise /uilt2 ofacts of immoralit2. For this ver2 reason, +e o not believe that the penalt2 of suspension fromthe practice of la+ ma2 be properl2 impose upon responent.

%t the same time, &h# Co0r& ar##* &ha& r#*'o-$#-& *ho0"$ +# r#'r!)a-$#$ or a!"0r# &oco)'"( /!&h &h# r!oro0* *&a-$ar$* o co-$0c& a''ro'r!a"( r#0!r#$ ro) &h# )#)+#r*o &h# ar a-$ o!c#r* o &h# co0r&. A* o!c#r* o &h# co0r&, "a/(#r* )0*& -o& o-"( !- ac&+# o oo$ )ora" characr +0& )0*& a"*o +# *##- &o +# o oo$ )ora" characr a-$"#a$!- "!#* !- accor$a-c# /!&h &h# h!h#*& )ora" *&a-$ar$* o &h# co))0-!&(. Morespecificall2, a member of the 8ar an officer of the court is not onl2 re>uire to refrain fromaulterous relationships or the eepin/ of mistresses 1but must also so behave himself as toavoi scanali0in/ the public b2 creatin/ the belief that he is floutin/ those moral stanars.

%ORDINC", the ourt Resolve to R!PRIM%ND responent attorne2 for conuctunbecomin/ a member of the 8ar an an officer of the court, an to %RN him thatcontinuation of the same or similar conuct +ill be ealt +ith more severel2 in the future.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.


6/128


Manila

!N 8%N

A.M. No. 1334 No#)+#r 28, 1989

ROSARIO DELOS REES, complainant,vs.ATT. JOSE . A6NAR, responent.

Federico A. Blay for complainant.

Luciano Babiera for respondent.

R!SO"#TION

PER CURIAM7

This is a complaint for isbarment file a/ainst responent on the /roun of /ross immoralit2.

omplainant, a secon 2ear meical stuent of the South+estern #niversit2 3ebu4, alle/e inher verifie complaint that responent %tt2. *ose 8. %0nar, then chairman of sai universit2, hacarnal no+le/e of her for several times uner threat that she +oul fail in her Patholo/2sub5ect if she +oul not submit to responent1s lustful esires. omplainant further alle/e that+hen she +#ca)# 'r#-a-&, responent, throu/h a certain Dr. Cil Ramas, ha her uner/o

force abortion.

In compliance +ith the Resolution of the ourt ate *ul2 ', &'$6, responent file his %ns+er$#-(!- a-( '#r*o-a" -o/"#$# o co)'"a!-a-& as +ell as all the alle/ations containe inthe complaint an b2 +a2 of special efense, averre that complainant is a +oman of loosemoralit2.

On September ), &'$6, the ourt Resolve to refer the case to the Solicitor Ceneral forinvesti/ation, report an recommenation.

The finin/s of the Solicitor Ceneral is summari0e as follo+s@

!VID!N! FOR TH! OMP"%IN%NT

omplainant Rosario elos Re2es testifie that@

&4 she +as a secon 2ear meical stuent of the South+estern#niversit2, the hairman of the 8oar of +hich +as responent*ose 8. %0nar 3pp. &&, &7, tsn, *une ?, &'$74A


7/128

)4 she ho+ever faile in her Patholo/2 sub5ect +hich prompteher to approach responent in the latter1s house +ho assure herthat she +oul pass the sai sub5ect 3pp. &7,&?, )?, ;;, tsn, *une?, &'$74A

;4 espite this assurance, ho+ever, she faile 3p. ;;, tsn, *une ?,

&'$74A

64 sometime in Februar2, &'$;, responent tol her that sheshoul /o +ith him to Manila, other+ise, she +oul flun in all hersub5ects 3pp. 6), 7B, tsn, *une ?, &'$74A ... ... ... A

74 on Februar2 &), &'$;, both responent an complainantboare the same plane 3!Eh. 9%94 for ManilaA from the ManilaDomestic %irport, the2 proceee to Room 'B7, 'th Floor of the

%mbassaor Hotel +here the2 sta2e for three a2s 3!Ehs. 9G9,9G-&9 to 9G-?9A p. 77, tsn, *une ?, & '$74A

?4 after arrivin/ at the %mbassaor Hotel, the2 ine at a Spanishrestaurant at San Marcelino, Malate, Manila for aroun threehours 3pp 7?-7$, tsn, *une ?, &'$74A

$4 the2 returne to the hotel at aroun t+elve o1cloc mini/ht,+here responent ha carnal no+le/e of her t+ice an thenthrice the neEt mornin/ 3p. 7', tsn, *une ?, &'$7A pp. &76, &77 J&7$, tsn, *ul2 &(, &'$74A

(4 complainant consente to the seEual esires of responentbecause for her, she +oul sacrifice her personal honor rather

than fail in her sub5ects 3p.?l, tsn, *une ?, &'$74A ... ... ...A

'4 sometime in March, &'$;, complainant tol responent that she+as suspectin/ pre/nanc2 because she misse her menstruation3p. $?, tsn, *ul2 &$, &'$74A ... ... ...A

&B4 later, she +as informe b2 Dr. Monsanto 3an instructor in thecolle/e of meicine4 that responent +ante that an abortion beperforme upon her 3p.(), tsn, *ul2 l$, &'$74A ... ... ... A

&&4 thereafter, Ruben ru0, a confiant of responent, an Dr.Monsato fetche her at her boarin/ house on the preteEt that she

+oul be eEamine b2 Dr. Cil Ramas 3pp. ($-((, tsn, *ul2 &$,&'$74A

&)4 upon reachin/ the clinic of Dr. Ramas she as !i"en anin#ection and an inhalation mas +as place on her mouth annose 3pp. ((-'B, tsn, *ul2 &$, & '$74A

&;4 as a result, she lost consciousness an +hen she +oe up, anabortion ha alrea2 been performe upon her an she +as


8/128

+ea, bleein/ an felt pain all over her bo2 3pp. 'B-'&, tsn, *ul2&$, &'$74A ... ... ... 3Rollo, pp. ;(-6B4

Monica Cutierre0 Tan testifie that she met complainant an a man +homcomplainant introuce as %tt2. %0nar in front of the %mbassaor Hotel 3pp. &(;-&(6, tsn, Sept. &B, &'$7A Rollo, p. 6&4.

Dr. Rebecca Cucor an Dr. %rtemio In/co, +itnesses for the complainant, testifie thatabominal eEaminations an E-ra2 eEamination of the lumbro-sacral re/ion of complainantsho+e no si/ns of abnormalit2 3Rollo, p. 6)4.

The evience for the responent as reporte b2 the Solicitor Ceneral is summari0e as follo+s@

!ilberto aban testifie that@

&. In December, &'$), responent %tt2. %0nar sta2e at%mbassaor Hotel +ith his +ife an chilrenA responent never

came to Manila eEcept in December, &'$)A 3pp. (-',. tsn, Nov. )6,&'$$4A

). He usuall2 slept +ith responent ever2time the latter comes toManila 3p. &;, tsn, Nov. )6, &'$$A Rollo, pp. 6)-6;4.

Oscar Salan/san/, another +itness for the responent state that@

&. In Februar2, &'$;, he +ent to %mbassaor Hotel to meetresponentA the latter ha male companions at the hotel but he inot see an2 +oman companion of responent %0narA

). He usuall2 slept +ith responent at the %mbassaor Hotel anate +ith him outsie the hotel to/ether +ith aban 3pp. (-', &;-&7,tsn, *an. &;, &'$(A Rollo, p. 6;4.

The ourt notes that throu/hout the perio of the investi/ation conucte b2 the SolicitorCeneral, responent %0nar +as never presente to refute the alle/ations mae a/ainst him.

In his %ns+er, responent %0nar alle/es that he oes not have an2 no+le/e of the alle/ationsin the complaint. %s special efense, responent further alle/e that the char/e levelle a/ainsthim is in furtherance of complainant1s vo+ to +rec ven/eance a/ainst responent b2 reason ofthe latter1s approval of the recommenation of the 8oar of Trustees barrin/ complainant fromenrollment for the school 2ear &'$;-&'$6 because she faile in most of her sub5ects. It is

lie+ise contene that the efense i not bother to present responent in the investi/ationconucte b2 the Solicitor Ceneral because nothin/ has been sho+n in the hearin/ to provethat responent ha carnal no+le/e of the complainant.

ontrar2 to responent1s averments, the Solicitor Ceneral mae a cate/orical finin/ to theeffect that responent ha carnal no+le/e of complainant, to +it@


9/128

From the fore/oin/, it is clear that complainant +as compelle to /o to Manila+ith responent upon the threat of responent that if she faile to o so, she+oul flun in all her sub5ects an she +oul never become a meical intern 3pp.6), 7B, tsn, *une ?, &'$74. %s responent +as hairman of the olle/e ofMeicine, complainant ha ever2 reason to believe him.

It has been establishe also that complainant +as brou/ht b2 responent toA)+a**a$or o" !- Ma-!"a or &hr## $a(* /h#r# h# r#'#a$"( ha$ car-a"-o/"#$# o h#r 0'o- &h# &hr#a& &ha& ! *h# /o0"$ -o& !# !- &o h!* "0*&0"$#*!r#*, *h# /o0"$ a!" !- h#r Pa&ho"o( *0+:#c&3!Ehs. 9%9, 9G9, 9G-&9 to 9G-?9pp. 7&, 7), 77-7', tsn, *une ?, &'$74A

EEE EEE EEE

On the other han, responent i not bother to appear urin/ the hearin/. It istrue that he presente !ilberto aban an Oscar Salan/san/ +ho testifie thatresponent usuall2 slept +ith them ever2 time the latter came to Manila, but theirtestimon2 3sic4 is not much of help. None of them mentione urin/ the hearin/that the2 sta2e an slept +ith responent on Februar2 &) to Februar2 &6, &'$;at %mbassaor Hotel. ... ... ... 8esies, !ilberto aban testifie that responentsta2e at %mbassaor Hotel +ith his +ife an chilren in December, &'$). Theates in >uestion, ho+ever, are Februar2 &) to &6, &'$;, inclusive. His 3aban1s4testimon2, therefore, is immaterial to the present case9 3Rollo, pp. 6;-664.

In effect, the Solicitor Ceneral foun that the char/e of immoralit2 a/ainst responent %0nar hasbeen substantiate b2 sufficient evience both testimonial an ocumentar2A +hile finin/insufficient an uncorroborate the accusation of intentional abortion. The Solicitor Ceneral thenrecommens the suspension of responent from the practice of la+ for a perio of not less thanthree 3;4 2ears.

On March &?, &'(', the ourt Resolve to re>uire the parties to Move in the premises toetermine +hether an2 intervenin/ event occurre +hich +oul rener the case moot anacaemic 3Rollo, p. ?'4.

On %pril &), &'(', the Solicitor Ceneral file a manifestation an motion pra2in/ that the case atbar be consiere submitte for ecision on the bases of the report an recommenationpreviousl2 submitte to/ether +ith the recor of the case an the evience auce 3Rollo, p.$74.

%fter a thorou/h revie+ of the recors, the Co0r& ar##* /!&h &h# !-$!- o &h# So"!c!&orG#-#ra" &ha& r#*'o-$#-& A;-ar, 0-$#r &h# ac&* a* *&a$ !- &h# R#'or& o &h#

!-#*&!a&!o- co-$0c$ !- &h# ca*#, !* 0!"&( o %ro**"( !))ora" co-$0c&%an ma2therefore be r#)o#$ or *0*'#-$#$ +( &h# S0'r#)# Co0r& or co-$0c& 0-+#co)!- a)#)+#r o &h# ar


10/128

hile responent enie havin/ taen complainant to the %mbassaor Hotel an there haseEual intercourse +ith the latter, he i not present an2 evience to sho+ +here he +as at thatate. hile this is not a criminal proceein/, responent +oul have one more than eep hissilence if he reall2 felt un5ustl2 trauce.

It is the ut2 o a "a/(#r, /h#-##r h!* )ora" characr !* '0& !- !**0#, &o *a&!*( &h!* Co0r&

&ha& h# !* a !& a-$ 'ro'#r '#r*o- &o #-:o( co-&!-0#$ )#)+#r*h!' !- &h# ar.He cannotispense +ith nor o+n/rae the hi/h an eEactin/ moral stanars of the la+ profession 3Cov. ano2, )& SR% 6;' 0a" !-rco0r*# -o& +#ca0*# o a $#*!r# or *#>0a"ra&!!ca&!o- +0& +#ca0*# o r#*'o-$#-&* )ora" a*c#-$a-c(over her an fear that if she+oul not accee, she +oul flun in her sub5ects. %s chairman of the colle/e of meicine+here complainant +as enrolle, the latter ha ever2 reason to believe that responent coulmae /oo his threats. Moreover, as counsel for responent +oul eem it 9+orth+hile toinform the the ourt that the responent is a scion of a rich famil2 an a ver2 rich man in hiso+n ri/ht an in fact is not practicin/ his profession before the court9 3Rollo, p. $B4, mere


11/128

suspension for a limite perio, per se, +oul therefore serve no reeemin/ purpose. Th# ac&&ha& h# !* a r!ch )a- a-$ $o#* -o& 'rac&!c# h!* 'ro#**!o- a* a "a/(#r, $o#* -o& r#-$#rr#*'o-$#-& a '#r*o- o oo$ )ora" characr. !vience of /oo moral character preceesamission to bar 3Sec.), Rule &;(, Rules of ourt4 an such re>uirement is not ispense +ithupon amission thereto. Coo moral character is a continuin/ >ualification necessar2 to entitleone to continue in the practice of la+. The ancient an learne profession of la+ eEacts from its

members the hi/hest stanar of moralit2 3uin/+a v. Puno, supra4.

#ner Section )$, Rule &;(, 93a4 member of the bar ma2 be remove or suspene from hisoffice as attorne2 b2 the Supreme ourt for an2 eceit, malpractice, or other /ross misconuctin such office, /rossl2 immoral conuct, or b2 reason of his conviction of a crime involvin/ moralturpitue, or for an2 violation of the oath +hich he is re>uire to tae before amission topractice, ... 9 InArci!a ". 'anian!3&B? SR% 7'&,


12/128


Manila

S!OND DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ@93@133 Oc&o+#r 1, 1995

MARIET CORDOBA a-$ CRISTOPER CORDOBA, complainants,vs.ON. EMMA C. LAAEN, Pr#*!$!- J0$#, ra-ch 54, RTC, &h J0$!c!a" R#!o-,aco"o$ C!&( ON. ETEL ATALAS@MOSCARDON, or)#r Pr#*!$!- J0$# ora-ch 54, RTC, &h J0$!c!a" R#!o-, aco"o$ C!&( GIA L. ARINDA, ra-ch C"#r oCo0r&, a-$ MARIO P. LAMERA, Co0r& Sh#r!, ra-ch 54, RTC, aco"o$ C!&( ARMANDON. ESO, Co0r& Sh#r!, a-$ EDGAR DEPAMALO, S0+'o#-a S#r#r, ra-ch 5, RTC,aco"o$ C!&(, responents.

REGALADO, J.:

For consieration b2 the ourt is the matter of the orer +e issue on November );,&''6,1re>uirin/ %tt2. Salvaor T. Sabio, counsel for herein complainants, to sho+ cause aneEplain +h2 he shoul not +# a$)!-!*&ra&!#"( $#a"& /!&h or !o"a&!o- o Ca-o- I, R0"#* 1.2a-$ 1.3 o &h# Co$# o Pro#**!o-a" R#*'o-*!+!"!&(.

%ctin/ on the Memoranum of the Office of the ourt %ministrator an the ompliance2file

b2 %tt2. Sabio, the ourt issue a Resolution on Ma2 ;B, &''7,3

further referrin/ the matter tothe 8ar onfiant for evaluation, report an recommenation. On *ul2 $, &''7, the lattersubmitte a Report an Recommenation4finin/ %tt2. Sabio /uilt2 of violatin/ Rules &.B) an&.B; of anon I, +hich the ourt hereb2 approves +ith moifications.

The present incient is an offshoot of an aministrative complaint5file b2 complainantsMaribeth an hristopher orova, throu/h their aforesai counsel, %tt2. Sabio, a/ainst hereinresponents for $!*+ar)#-&, $!*)!**a" ro) o!c# a-$ $!*0a"!!ca&!o- &o ho"$ '0+"!co!c# /!&h or#!&0r# o #)'"o()#-& +#-#!&* or &h#!r !-o"#)#-& !- C!!" Ca*# No. =92o &h# R#!o-a" Tr!a" Co0r&, ra-ch 54, aco"o$ C!&(. Th# a$)!-!*&ra&!# co)'"a!-&,ho/##r, /a* $!*)!**#$ +( &h!* Co0r& o- &h# +a*!* o a M#)ora-um ReportateOctober &$, &''6 submitte b2 Deput2 ourt %ministrator 8ernaro P. %besamis, +ho lie+ise

recommene that %tt2. Sabio be re>uire to eEplain +h2 he shoul not be aministrativel2ealt +ith for violation of anon I, Rules &.B) an &&B; on the /roun that@

Their char/e that %tt2. Salvaor T. Sabio 9clearl2 insti/ate9 the filin/ of thiscomplaint is also not totall2 baseless.

In her comment, *u/e Moscaron state that 9. . . the ori/inal counsel on recorun>uestionabl2 accepte the Decision of the appellate RT court 3sic4. On theother han, the petitioners no+, as +ell as their present counsel +ho are not full2


13/128

conversant 3+ith4 the circumstances surrounin/ the matter, no+ attempt tomislea the Hi/h ourt . . . .9 %lso +orth mentionin/ +ere the alle/ations that 3&4the responent sheriffs +ere criminall2 char/e for robber2, /rave threats anmalicious mischiefA 3)4 that the plaintiffs re-occupie the premises after bein/e5ecte therefromA 3;4 %tt2. Sabio ha been char/e for crimes involvin/ishonest2.

The fore/oin/ points to the possible violations of the oe of Professional !thics,particularl2 anon I, Rule &.B) 3% la+2er shall not counsel or abet activitiesaime at efiance of the la+ . . .4 an Rule &.B; 3% la+2er shall not, for an2corrupt motive or interest, encoura/e an2 suit or proceein/ or ela2 an2 man1scause4.

The main bul of %tt2. Sabio1s contentions +ere premise on the issue of +hether the +rits ofeEecution +ere issue an implemente b2 herein responents in /ross violation of Sections (an &B, Rule $B of the Rules of ourt, +ith manifest partialit2 an breach of 5uicial trust, an+ith /rave abuse of iscretion in eEcess of 5urisiction. In his ompliance, %tt2. Sabio assertsthat the +rit of eEecution +as issue penin/ appeal espite the filin/ of a superseeas bon

an the pa2ment of avance rentals. % revie+ of the complaint, comment an ans+er file inthis case +ill reail2 sho+ that the +rits in >uestion +ere issue strictl2 in accorance +ithSections ( an &B, Rule $B of the Rules of ourt +hich provie@

Sec. (. 1mmediate 23ecution of #ud!ment. 0o to stay same. K If 5u/ment isrenere a/ainst the efenant, eEecution shall issue immeiatel2, unless anappeal has been perfecte an the efenant to sta2 eEecution files a sufficientbon, approve b2 the municipal or cit2 court an eEecute to the plaintiff toenter the action in the ourt of First Instance an to pa2 the rents, ama/es, ancosts accruin/ o+n to the time of the 5u/ment appeale from, an unless,urin/ the penenc2 of the appeal, he eposits +ith the appellate court theamount of rent ue from time to time uner the contract, if an2, as foun b2 the

5u/ment of the municipal or cit2 court to eEist. In the absence of a contract, heshall eposit +ith the court the reasonable value of the use an occupation of thepremises for the precein/ month or perio at the rate etermine b2 the

5u/ment, on or before the tenth a2 of each succeein/ month or perio. Thesuperseeas bon shall be transmitte b2 the municipal or cit2 court, +ith theother papers, to the cler of the ourt of First Instance to +hich the action isappeale.

EEE EEE EEE

Sec. &B. %tay of e3ecution on appeal to Court of Appeals or %upreme Court. Khere efenant appeals from a 5u/ment of the ourt of First Instance,eEecution of sai 5u/ment, +ith respect to the restoration of possession, shallnot be sta2e unless the appellant eposits the same amounts an +ithin theperios referre to in Section ( of this rule to be ispose of in the same manneras therein provie.

The recors of this aministrative matter sho+ that in an action for e5ectment file a/ainst thepreecessor in interest of herein complainants, =5u/ment +as renere on %pril &6, &'') b2the Municipal Trial ourt, 8ranch ?, 8acolo it2, in ivil ase No. &($?&, orerin/ efenants


14/128

to vacate the premises an to pa2 plaintiffs therein the sum of P7,BBB.BB as attorne21s fees plusP&,)BB.BB appearance fee, P&(,BBB.BB for rentals from Ma2, &''& to %pril, &''), an costs ofsuit. On %u/ust )B, &''), the Re/ional Trial ourt affirme sai 5u/ment after finin/ that there+as no co/ent reason to reverse the lo+er court1s ecision.

% Motion for rit of !Eecution Penin/ %ppeal +as file b2 plaintiffs on September 6, &''7, to

+hich an Opposition an Motion for Reconsieration +as file b2 efenants on September &B,&''). The Re/ional Trial ourt /rante the motion on September )(, &'') an the +rit ofeEecution +as issue on September ;B, &''). Ho+ever, in the afternoon of September )',&''), plaintiffs file a Motion for Reconsieration of the orer of September )(, &'') /rantin/the motion for eEecution, on the /roun that the2 coul not file the superseeas bon becausethe court alle/el2 faile to apprise them of the amount thereof an, at the same time, attachin/to sai motion a bon in the amount of P&(,BBB.BB. The motion for reconsieration +as enieb2 the Re/ional Trial ourt on October &, &''), as a conse>uence of +hich the +rit of eEecutionpreviousl2 issue +as implemente on October (, &'') an plaintiffs +ere orere restore tothe possession of the sub5ect premises.

Therein efenant "u0 orova +ent to the ourt of %ppeals on a petition for certiorari +ith

in5unction but +as rebuffe therein. In a ecision promul/ate on March ;&, &''; in %-C.R.SP No. )'&B), sai appellate court affirme in toto the ecision of the Re/ional Trial ourt.%s aresult, the "o/#r co0r& ra-$ o- A'r!" 21, 1993 &h# Mo&!o- orAlias r!& o E>#c0&!o-!"#$ +( '"a!-&!* a-$ or$#r#$ &h# r#"#a*# o &h# a)o0-&* o P12,. a-$ P&(,BBB.BBeposite b2 therein efenants. %n alias+rit of eEecution +as subse>uentl2 issue on %pril )?,&'';.

The aministrative complaint no+ file before us b2 herein complainants, as heirs ansuccessors in interest of the late "u0 orova, revolves aroun the valiit2 of the +rit ofeEecution issue b2 *u/e Moscaron an the alias+rit of eEecution issue b2 *u/e "aba2en.

&. The +rit of eEecution issue on September ;B, &'') b2 *u/e Moscaron is bein/controverte on the /roun that a superseeas bon ha been valil2 file in this case anperioic rentals ha been pai, hence sai suppose compliance +ith the Rules of ourt shoulhave le/all2 sta2e eEecution penin/ appeal.

Sections ( an &B of Rule $B clearl2 provie that to sta2 the immeiate eEecution of 5u/ment ine5ectment proceein/s, it is necessar2 that the efenant-appellant must 3a4 perfect his appeal,3b4 file a superseeas bon, an 3c4 perioicall2 eposit the rentals fallin/ ue urin/ thepenenc2 of the appeal.

The purpose of the superseeas bon is to ans+er for the rents, ama/es an costs accruin/o+n to the 5u/ment of the inferior court appeale from, the amount of +hich is to be

etermine from the 5u/ment of sai court. The postulation of complainants an their counselthat the eEecution sou/ht +as effectivel2 sta2e b2 the filin/ of a superseeas bon +assufficientl2 refute an 5ustifiabl2 re5ecte +hen +e consier the circumstances then obtainin/.

First. The amount of the superseeas bon to be poste is easil2 iscernible from theispositive portion of the 5u/ment of the municipal trial court. Hence, it +as erroneous, if notalto/ether a eliberate falsit2, for %tt2. Sabio to claim that the2 coul not file a superseeas bonbecause that court faile to etermine the same.


15/128

%econd. The bon shoul have been file forth+ith after the municipal trial court ha renere5u/ment a/ainst complainants, +hich 5u/ment +as immeiatel2 eEecutor2, +ithout pre5uiceto the ri/ht of appeal. %s the recors reail2 reveal, the purporte bon +as belatel2 file onSeptember )', &''), more than five months later, an onl2 after the aforementione Re/ionalTrial ourt ha alrea2 issue an orer /rantin/ the motion for eEecution penin/ appeal. ecannot, therefore, elue the impression thus create that the filin/ thereof came onl2 as a

ilator2 afterthou/ht on the part of efenants an their counsel. In a vain attempt to reme2 thesituation, %tt2. Sabio file a motion for reconsieration of the orer /rantin/ eEecution, but thesame necessaril2 ha to fail for bein/ frivolous.

&hird. It +ill be observe that no superseeas bon +as file after the renition of the ecisioneither in the court of ori/in or in the appellate court. The re>uirement for the filin/ of asuperseeas bon is manator2.8D##-$a-&* !- &h# #:#c&)#-& ca*# a''#a"#$ &o &h# "a&rco0r& /!&ho0& !"!- a *0'#r*#$#a* +o-$.Such failure is a /roun for outri/ht eEecution of the

5u/ment of the municipal trial court, the ut2 of the appellate court to orer the eEecution of theappeale ecision bein/ thereb2 ministerial an imperative. 9

Fourth. The ourt of %ppeals state that the amount of P&(,BBB.BB eposite b2 efenants

therein represente rental pa2ments for the perio from Ma2, &''& to %pril, &''), an that a +ritof eEecution ha b2 then alrea2 been issue b2 the Re/ional Trial ourt. !vientl2, therefore,the amount thus eposite coul not >ualif2 as or subserve the purpose of a superseeas bon.Thus@

Finall2, anent the pra2er for in5unction, petitioner contens that she haeposite +ith the public responent court the amount of P&(,BBB.BBrepresentin/ the mone2 5u/ment, to sta2 eEecution penin/ appeal. The courtnote that the sai amount represente the rental pa2ments onl2 for the monthsfrom Ma2 &''& to %pril &''). It is for this reason that this ourt, in its Resolutionate October ', &'') 3p. ?B, Rollo4, orere petitioner to present proof ofsubse>uent pa2ments mae pursuant to Sections ( an &B of Rule $B. It

appears, ho+ever, that a rit of !Eecution +as alrea2 issue an evenimplemente 3par. 7. #r/ent Motion for Issuance of Temporar2 Restrainin/ Orer,pp. '(-'', RolloA Deliver2 of Possession, p. &&(, Rollo4 that a preliminar2in5unction is thereb2 renere nu/ator2. . . .1

hile it is true, therefore, that efenants eposite an amount +hich approEimates themonetar2 5u/ment for unpai rentals, since the same +as file late, it coul not >ualif2 as asuperseeas bon. hat is consiere material for purposes of sta2in/ eEecution penin/appeal uner Rule $B is not onl2 the fact of pa2ment but, more importantl2, the timeliness of thefilin/ of the superseeas bon. Hence, the amount of P&(,BBB.BB +as correctl2 applie as mererental pa2ments from Ma2, &''& to %pril, &''). On this /roun alone, *u/e Moscaron +asperfectl2 5ustifie in issuin/ the +rit of eEecution an responent sheriffs in implementin/ thesame. Of these le/al consierations, %tt2. Sabio coul not have been una+are.

The recors, furthermore, o not sustain %tt2. Sabio1s representations +ith respect to theapplication of the P&),BBB.BB +hich complainants supposel2 eposite +ith the court a uo.

%tt2. Sabio insists that sai amount +as intene to ans+er for monthl2 rentals fallin/ ue afterthe renition of the ecision of the Municipal Trial ourt. This, ho+ever, runs contrar2 to thefacts obtainin/ in this case. The ecisions of the Municipal Trial ourt an the ourt of %ppealsare silent on this point eEcept for a statement foun in the hi/her court1s ecision that 9this


16/128

ourt, in its Resolution ate October ', &''), orere petitioner to present proof of subse>uentpa2ments mae.9 %lso, in the orer of *u/e Moscaron ate October &, &''), she state that9the recor oes not sho+ that the efenants ha lie+ise pai the perioical rentals.9 %lso, inthe complaint file in this aministrative matter, it is alle/e that the efenant consi/ne therentals from Ma2, &''& until %pril, &'') in the amount of P&),BBB.BB.

In vie+ of these conflictin/ statements of complainants, plus the fact that there is not enou/hevience on han, +e are prevente from main/ a specific etermination thereon.Nevertheless, +hether or not perioic rental pa2ments +ere mae urin/ the penenc2 of theappeal no lon/er carries an2 +ei/ht in vie+ of our earlier finin/ that eEecution coul not bele/all2 sta2e b2 reason of the amittel2 belate filin/ of the purporte superseeas bon.

omplainants further conten that the Re/ional Trial ourt ha no 5urisiction to issue the +rit ofeEecution alle/el2 because it shoul have for+are the recors of the case to the court ofori/in for proper implementation. The ar/ument is specious. The Municipal Trial ourt ma2 issueeEecution immeiatel2 after 5u/ment if no action +as taen therefrom b2 efenants. 8ut, afterthe perfection of the appeal, it is obvious that the 5urisiction over the controvers2 ha passe tothe Re/ional Trial ourt, hence the properl2 file in an /rante b2 the latter court.11

). %nent the issue on the le/alit2 of the alias +rit of eEecution issue b2 *u/e "aba2en,%tt2.Sabio avers that the same is voi for the reason that he +as not furnishe a cop2 of the orer,ate %pril )&, &'';, +hich /rante the motion for alias +rit of eEecution. He further insists thatthe same +as issue espite the fact that the ecision of the ourt of %ppeals ha not 2etbecome final an eEecutor2 since it +as still penin/ revie+ before the Supreme ourt.

#ner S#c&!o- 1 o R0"# =, a- a''#a" &o &h# Co0r& o A''#a"* or &h# S0'r#)# Co0r&*ha"" "!#/!*# -o& +# *&a(#$ 0-"#** &h# a''#""a-&* $#'o*!& &h# a)o0-& o r#-& $0# ro)&!)# &o &!)#. In the case at bar, no proof has been presente to sho+ that the monthl2 rentals+hich fell ue after the renition of the trial court1s ecision ha been ul2 pai.

%ssumin/ ar!uendo, as claime b2 %tt2. Sabio, that the P&),BBB.BB eposite +ith the Re/ionalTrial ourt shoul ans+er for sai rentals, the same +as not sufficient to cover rentals ueurin/ the entire penenc2 of the case before the ourt of %ppeals an the Supreme ourt. %tmost, such amount coul appl2 onl2 to rental pa2ments from Ma2, &'') to December, &''). Ofthese facts, a/ain, %tt2. Sabio coul not have been completel2 oblivious.

The ourt of %ppeals renere its ecision on March ;&, &''; an there is absolutel2 nothin/ inthe recors to sho+ that herein complainants mae further pa2ments asie from the P&),BBB.BBan P&(,BBB.BB eposite +ith the Municipal Trial ourt an the Re/ional Trial ourt,respectivel2. In aition, %tt2. Sabio oes not refute, an in fact it is amitte in para/raph ? ofthe complaint file in this aministrative matter, that complainants reentere an remaine inpossession of the premises, an it appears that the2 continue to o so espite the priorimplementation of the ori/inal +rit of eEecution. Veril2, this time for failure of complainants tomae perioic eposits urin/ the penenc2 of the appeal an their continue occupanc2 of thepremises, the issuance of thealias +rit of eEecution +as a ministerial an manator2 ut2 ofresponent 5u/es.

%tt2. Sabio lie+ise claims that eEecution coul not issue because he +as not serve a cop2 ofthe orer ate %pril )&, &'';12+hich /rante the motion for alias +rit of eEecution. Herationali0es that@


17/128

. . . The fact is that, a cop2 of the Orer ate %pril )&, &''; +as not furnishethe efenant1s counsel.

Truth to tell, this is eEactl2 the /roun +h2 unersi/ne counsel file his #r/entMotion to "iftAliasrit of !Eecution, . . . .

It is therefore clear that theAlias rit of !Eecution ate %pril )?, &''; issue b2the efenant ler of ourt, Cia ". %rana2, +as improperl2 issue, consierin/that the 4rder of the court /rantin/ the Motion for Issuance of rit of !Eecutionate %pril )&, &''; asnot furnished the unersi/ne counsel, an, it is onl2 throu/h theresourcefulness of the unersi/ne of follo+in/-up this case that he came tono+ of the sai Orer ate %pril )&, &'';.

#nersi/ne counsel foun himself in an embarrassin/ situation, +hen he +asconfronte b2 his clients that theAlias rit of !Eecution ate %pril )?, &''; +asissue +ithout his no+le/e of the prior ourt Orer ate %pril )&, &'';.

It is in this respect, that unersi/ne honestl2 believe that he has a +ell/roune complaint a/ainst responents ler of ourt an process server fortheir ne/li/ent act. 3!mphasis in the ori/inal teEt.413

That ba faith attene the filin/ of this aministrative char/e +as un+ittin/l2 isclose b2 theafore>uote alle/ations of %tt2. Sabio in his compliance. No ratiocination +as proffere b2 himnor i he invoe an2 authorit2 of la+ or 5urispruence, since eciel2 there is none, to supporthis theor2 that eEecution shoul not issue +here the averse part2 is not serve a cop2 of theorer even +here the /rant thereof ha become a matter of ri/ht. The inescapable conclusion,therefore, is that the filin/ of the present complaint +as, at the ver2 least, ill-conceive anmalicious, an +as resorte to as a last-itch effort an a face-savin/ recourse of counsel.

It is +orth notin/ that the aministrative complaint +as file a/ainst herein responents onl2after the ourt of %ppeals ha renere a ecision in favor of plaintiffs. This in itself is alrea2 aclear inication that the acts of responents are vali an le/al. et, %tt2. Sabio persiste ininstitutin/ these baseless char/es a/ainst responents to their proven pre5uice.14%s correctl2observe b2 the 8ar onfiant, uner the /iven circumstances, it is apparent that complainantsecie to institute the present case onl2 on the avice an:or upon the ur/in/ of %tt2. Sabio. Italso bears stressin/ that responent *u/e "aba2en even +aite for the ourt of %ppeals1ecision before actin/ on the motion for an alias +rit of eEecution of plaintiffs, if onl2 to obviatean2 imputation of bias or partialit2.

e are full2 convince that, espite the misleain/ assertions of %tt2. Sabio, the issuance of the

+rit of eEecution +as one in the vali an 5uicious eEercise of the functions an uties ofresponent 5u/es. e have carefull2 eEamine an anal20e the proceure aopte b2responents in the issuance an enforcement of the >uestione +rits. It +oul be the hei/ht ofin5ustice +ere +e to impose an2 sanction on them for compl2in/ faithfull2 +ith the proceuralmanate of the rules /overnin/ the matter.

Th# Co0r& /o0"$ "!# &o ca"" a&-&!o- aa!- &o &h# r#'r#h#-*!+"# 'ro'#-*!&( o$!*r0-&"#$ "!&!a-&*, )o*& #*'#c!a""( &h#!r co0-*#", o !"!- &o&a""( +a*#"#** a-$0-o0-$#$ char#* aa!-*& :0$#* a-$ co0r& '#r*o--#" !- a a!- a&)'& &o #*ca'# &h#


18/128

$!r# co-*#0#-c#* o &h#!r o/- -#"!#-c# or !- a- #or& &o &ra-*r#** &h# "a/0" or$#r*o &h# co0r&. J0$#* a-$ co0r& '#r*o--#" *ho0"$ +# 'roc$ ro) 0-:0*& acc0*a&!o-* o$!**a&!*!#$ "!&!a-&*, a+#&$ +( co0-*#" /ho *## &h#r#+( &o ca)o0"a# &h#!r*hor&co)!-*. 8esies, it /oes +ithout sa2in/ that mere suspicion that a 5u/e is partial to oneof the parties to the case is not enou/h. There shoul be evience to prove the char/e,15+hichis obviousl2 absent in the case at bar.

%s an officer of the court, a la+2er ha* &h# */or- $0&( &o a**!*& !-, -o& &o !)'#$# or '#r#r&,&h# a$)!-!*&ra&!o- o :0*&!c#.The present aministrative char/e sees to cast oubt on theinte/rit2 of responent 5u/es, the 5uicial personnel an the court +hich the2 represent, infla/rant abication of the bounen responsibilit2 of a la+2er to observe an maintain the respectue to courts of 5ustice. A&&(. Sa+!o &h0* $#*#r#* &o +# '0-!*h#$ or !-*&!a&!- &h# !"!-o a- a$)!-!*&ra&!# co)'"a!-& +( h!* c"!#-&*, !- &h# 0!*# o 0'ho"$!- &h#!r r!h&* +0&ac&0a""( &o r0*&ra &h# #-orc#)#-& o "a/0" co0r& or$#r* a-$ co-*#0#-&"( o+*&r0c&&h# $#*!ra+"# -or)* a-$ co0r*# o :0*&!c#.

H!R!FOR!, %tt2. Salvaor T. Sabio is hereb2 S#SP!ND!D from the practice of la+ for aperio of SIL 3?4 MONTHS, effective upon his receipt of a cop2 of this ecision. He is +arne

that a more severe sanction shall be impose shoul he commit another aministrative offense."et copies hereof be attache to his recor an serve on the 8ar onfiant, the Inte/rate 8arof the Philippines, an on all courts of the lan.

SO ORD!R!D.

(ar"asa, C.J., )uno, 'endoza and Francisco, JJ., concu


19/128

MERCEDES RUT CO@PERE6 a-$ DAMASO P. PERE6vs.ON. GREGORIO LANTIN, J0$# o &h# Co0r& o F!r*& I-*&a-c# o Ma-!"a,RICARDO P. ERMOSO a-$ &h# CIT SERIFF OF MANILA

G.R. No. L@2232 J0"( 29, 198

FACTS7

CASTRO, J.:

This is a motion for partial reconsieration of this ourt1s ecision of Ma2 )), &'?(, specificall2irecte a/ainst the follo+in/ observation therein mae@

e feel compelle to observe that urin/ the protracte liti/ation belo+, the '#&!&!o-#r*r#*or$ &o a *#r!#* o ac&!o-* a-$ '#&!&!o-*, a& *o)# *&a#* a"r-a&!-"( , a+#&$

+( &h#!r co0-*#", or &h# *o"# '0r'o*# o &h/ar&!- &h# #>#c0&!o- o a *!)'"#)o-#( :0$)#-& +hich has lon/ become final an eEecutor2. Some of the actions +erefile, onl2 to be abanone or +ithra+n. The petitioners an their counsel, far fromvie+in/ courts as sanctuaries for those +ho see 5ustice, have trie to use them tosubvert the ver2 ens of 5ustice.

orollaril2, this ourt assesse treble costs a/ainst the petitioners, to 9be pai b2 theircounsel.9.

The herein movants,%tt2s. rispin D. 8ai0as an %. N. 8olinas, counsels for the petitioners,+hile submittin/ to the 5u/ment on the merits, see reconsieration of the ecision in so far asit reflects aversel2 upon their 9professional conuct9 an conemns them to pa2 the treble

costs a5u/e a/ainst their clients.

%t first blush, the motion for reconsieration presents a semblance of merit. %fter matureeliberation an patient reprobin/ into the recors of the case, ho+ever, +e are of the firmerconviction that the protracte liti/ation, allue to in the above->uote portion of our ecision,+as esi/ne to cause ela2, an the active participation of the petitioners1 counsels in thisaventure is patent.

F%TS@

%fter November &7, &'?) +hen the ourt of %ppeals renere 5u/ment sustainin/ DamasoPere01 position +ith respect to the eEtent of the lev2, the subse>uent proceein/s interpose

alternatin/l2 b2 the petitioner spouses +ere obviousl2 >uiEotic maneuvers eEpecte to beoverthro+n b2 the courts but calculate to ela2 an eEecution lon/ overue.

Ha the petitioners an their counsels seriousl2 believe that the levie shares of stoc +erecon5u/al propert2, +h2 i the2 not aopt this position from the ver2 start, or, at the latest, in %-C.R. )''?)-R, +herein Damaso Pere0 challen/e the le/alit2 of the lev21s covera/e, in orer toen the liti/ation +ith reasonable ispatch The2 chose, ho+ever, to attac the eEecution in apiecemeal fashion, causin/ the postponement of the pro5ecte eEecution sale siE times . More


20/128

than ei/ht 2ears after the finalit2 of the 5u/ment have passe, an the same has 2et to besatisfie.

In a etermine effort to prolon/ the liti/ation, the Pere0 spouses, as represente b2 theircounsels, sou/ht the issuance of preliminar2 in5unctions to restrain the eEecution of the final

5u/ment in civil case ;'6B$ from courts +hich i not have 5urisiction an +hich +oul, as

eEpecte, initiall2 or ultimatel2 en2 their pra2er. For instance, after Damaso Pere0 bo+e outtemporaril2 from the scene follo+in/ the renition of the aforementione ourt of %ppealsecision, his +ife, Mercee0, Ruth obb-Pere0, intrue into the controvers2 an ase for aneE parte +rit of preliminar2 in5unction from the ourt of First Instance of Ri0al in connection +ithcivil case $7;) +hich she file +ith the sai court, no+in/ full2 +ell that the basic civil case;'6B$ +as ecie b2 the ourt of First Instance of Manila 38ranch VII presie b2 theresponent *u/e "antin4, +hich latter court +as the proper forum for an2 action relative to theeEecution. *u/e !ulo/io Mencias of the ourt of First Instance of Ri0al, looin/ to %costa vs.

%lvenia 3"-&67'(, October ;&, &'?B4, +hich hel that courts of first instance have no po+er torestrain acts outsie their territorial 5urisictions, lifte on October 6, &'?; the eE parte +rit+hich he previousl2 issue en5oinin/ the responent sheriff from carr2in/ out the eEecution sale.It is clear, ho+ever, that Mrs. Pere0 an her counsels, the movants, ne+ or ou/ht to have

no+n beforehan that the ourt of First Instance of Ri0al i not have 5urisiction to issue the+rit +hich Mrs. Pere0 herself sou/ht, an, anticipatin/ the recall of the +rit improvientl2 issue,on September ;, &'?;, a month before the sai +rit +as actuall2 lifte, file in the basic civilcase ;'6B$ an ur/ent motion to lift the +rit of eEecution issue on %u/ust &7, &'?&, alle/in/ as

5ustification the con5u/al nature of the levie shares of stoc an the personal nature of DamasoPere01 5u/ment ebt, the ver2 same reasons avance in civil case $7;) +hich +as then stillpenin/ in the ourt of First Instance of Ri0al. Incientall2, Mrs. Pere0 faile to auce an2evience in support of her aforesai ur/ent motion, as in fact neither she nor her counselsappeare urin/ the scheule hearin/, promptin/ the responent 5u/e to issue the follo+in/orer@

hen the ur/ent motion to recall or lift +rit of eEecution +as calle this mornin/ for

hearin/, counsel for the movant i not appear espite the fact that he ha been ul2notifie of the motion for hearin/. In vie+ thereof the court assumes that he is +aivin/his ri/ht to present evience in support of his ur/ent motion to recall or lift +rit ofeEecution. Sai ur/ent motion is therefore eeme submitte for resolution.

Despite the recall of the aforementioned rit of in#unction by Jud!e 'encias on a isclaimer of5urisiction 3since the eEecution sou/ht to be en5oine +as orere b2 another tribunal4, Mrs.Pere0, no+ assiste b2 her husban +ho ha sta/e a comebac, pra2e for the issuance ofanother in5unction, this time from 8ranch LLII of the ourt of First Instance of Manila 3not thesame 8ranch +hich issue the controverte +rit of eEecution4, in connection +ith civil case$7;), then still penin/ in the ourt of First Instance of Ri0al. %s most probabl2 anticipateane+ b2 the Pere0 spouses an their counsels, *u/e %lipala, presiin/ 5u/e of 8ranch LLII,

on November (, &'?; enie the preliminar2 in5unction sou/ht, on the /roun, amon/ others,that he ha no po+er to interfere b2 in5unction +ith the 5u/ment or ecree of a court ofconcurrent or coorinate 5urisiction. On the ver2 a2 the in5unction +as enie, Damaso Pere0,as if eEpectin/ the reversal from *u/e %lipala, +as alrea2 prepare +ith another 9reme2,9as in fact on that a2, November (, &'?;, he file in the basic civil case ;'6B$ an 9#r/entMotion for Reconsieration9 of the orer of October &', &'?;, +hich enie his +ife1s above-mentione motion to recall the controverte +rit of eEecution.


21/128

The fore/oin/ motion, far from seriousl2 seein/ the reconsieration of the orer of October &',&'?;, +hich in the first place Damaso Pere0 coul not le/all2 o for he +as not even a part2 tothe enie 9#r/ent Motion to Recall rit of !Eecution9 3file b2 his +ife alone4, +as merel2 anoffer to replace the levie stocs +ith suppose cash iviens ue to the Pere0 spouses asstocholers in the Republic 8an.&%s a matter of fact, +hen the motion +as set for hearin/ onDecember )&, &'?;, the counsels for Damaso Pere0 promise to prouce the sai cash

iviens +ithin five a2s, but the promise +as never fulfille.)onse>uentl2, the responent*u/e on *anuar2 6, &'?6, enie the sai motion for reconsieration.

The above eEposition of the circumstances relative to the protracte liti/ation clearl2 ne/atesthe avo+al of the movants that 9in none of the various incients in the case at bar has an2particular counsel of petitioners acte +ith eliberate aforethou/ht to ela2 the enforcement ofthe 5u/ment in ivil ase No. ;'6B$.9 From the chronolo/2 of anteceent events, the factbecomes inescapable that the Pere0 spouses, coache b2 their counsels, ha sallie forth on astrate/em of 9remeies9 pro5ecte to foil the la+ful eEecution of a simple mone2 5u/ment. It ise>uall2 obvious that the2 foreshao+e their o+n reversals in the 9remeies9 the2 venture toaopt, such that even before, one reme2 ha been eEhauste, the2 interpose another untilthe case reache this ourt for the secon time. ; Mean+hile, 5ustice +as ela2e, an more

than one member of this ourt are persuae that 5ustice +as practicall2 +a2lai.

The movants also conten that even this ourt sanctions the aforesai civil cases $7;) an77)') as the 9proper reme29 +hen +e sai that.

In realit2, +hat the2 attace is not the +rit of eEecution, the valiit2 an re/ularit2 of+hich are unchallen/e, but the lev2 mae b2 the responent Sheriff. In this re/ar, thereme2 is not the recall of the +rit, but an inepenent action to en5oin the Sheriff fromproceein/ +ith the pro5ecte sale, in hich action the con#u!al nature of the le"iedstoc/s should be established as a basis for the subseuent issuance of a permanentin#unction, in the e"ent of a successful claim. 1ncidentally, in the course of the protractedliti!ation, the petitioners had already a"ailed of this remedy in ci"il cases 5678 and

66898,onl2 to abanon it as the2 incessantl2 sou/ht other, an often simultaneous,evices of th+artin/ satisfaction of the 5u/ment ebt. 3!mphasis supplie4 .

%n because of this statement, the2 no+ counter that the sai cases coul not be brane ashavin/ been institute for ela2.

The reference +e mae to civil cases $7;) an 77)') in the above->uote statement must notbe consiere out of conteEt. e sai that the petitioners incidentally ha alrea2 availe of thesu//este reme2 onl2 in the sense that sai civil cases $7;) an 77)')+ere apparentlyinstitute to prove the con5u/al nature of the levie shares of stocs in>uestion. e use the +or incidentallyavisel2 to sho+ that in their incessant search forevices to th+art the controverte eEecution, the2 accientall2 stumble on the su//estereme2. 8ut the sai civil cases +ere efinitel2 not the 9proper reme29 in so far as the2 sou/htthe issuance of +rits of preliminar2 in5unction from the ourt of First Instance of Ri0al an theourt of First Instance of Manila 38ranch LLII4 +here civil cases $7;) an 77)') +ere filerespectivel2, for the sai courts i not have 5urisiction to restrain the enforcement of the +rit ofeEecution issue b2 the ourt of First Instance of Manila 38ranch VII4 uner the settleoctrines that ourts are +ithout po+er to restrain acts outsie of their territorial 5urisiction 6 orinterfere +ith the 5u/ment or ecree of a court of concurrent or coorinate 5urisiction. 7Ho+ever, the recall an the enial of the +rits of preliminar2 in5unction in civil cases $7;) an


22/128

77)') i not amount to the termination or ismissal of the principal action in each case. Hathe Pere0 spouses esire in earnest to continue +ith the sai cases the2 coul have one so.8ut the fact is that Mrs. Pere0 practicall2 abanone civil case $7;) +hen she institute theabove mentione ur/ent motion to recall +rit of eEecution in the basic civil case ;'6B$,anchore on the same /rouns +hich she avance in the former case, until the sai civil case$7;) +as ismisse on November ', &'?;, upon her on motion.%nent civil case 77)'), the

Pere0 spouses virtuall2 eserte the same +hen the2 institute the herein petitionfor certiorari +ith ur/ent +rit of preliminar2 in5unction base on the same /rouns proffere inthe sai civil case K until the latter +as also ismisse on March )B, &'?6, +ith the consent ofthe parties because of the penenc2 then of the aforesai petition for certiorari.

The movants further conten that 9If there +as ela2, it +as because petitioners1 counselhappene to be more assertive ... a >ualit2 of the la+2ers 3+hich4 is not to be conemne.9

% counsel1s assertiveness in espousin/ +ith canour an honest2 his client1s cause must beencoura/e an is to be commeneA +hat +e o not an cannot countenance is a la+2er1sinsistence espite the patent futilit2 of his client1s position, as in the case at bar.

It is the ut2 of a counsel to avise his client, orinaril2 a la2man to the intricacies an va/ariesof the la+, on the merit or lac of merit of his case. If he fins that his client1s cause isefenseless, then it is his bounen ut2 to avise the latter to ac>uiesce an submit, rather thantraverse the incontrovertible. % la+2er must resist the +hims an caprices of his client, antemper his client1s propensit2 to liti/ate. % la+2er1s oath to uphol the cause of 5ustice is superiorto his ut2 to his clientA its primac2 is inisputable.

The movants finall2 state that the 9Petitioners have several counsel in this case but theparticipation of each counsel +as rather limite impl2in/ that the ecision of this ourt orerin/that 9treble costs are assesse a/ainst the petitioners, +hich shall be pai b2 their counsel9 isnot clear. The +or 9counsel9 ma2 be either sin/ular or plural in construction, so that +hen +esai 9counsel9 +e meant the counsels on record of the petitioners +ho +ere responsible for theinorinate ela2 in the eEecution of the final 5u/ment in the basic civil case ;'6B$, after theourt of %ppeals ha renere its aforementione ecision of November &7, &'?). %n it is onrecor that the movants are such counsels.%tt2. 8olinas, upon his o+n amission, 9entere hisappearance in the case at bar about the time the ourt of First Instance of Manila ismisse thepetitioners1 Petition for Relief in ivil ase No. ;'6B$,9 or about %u/ust ;, &'?& an even priorto the ourt of %ppeals ecision above-mentione. %tt2. 8ai0as claims that he 9becamepetitioners1 counsel onl2 in October, &'?; +hen he file, +ith %tt2. %.N. 8olinao, *r. ivil aseNo. 77)') before the ourt of First Instance of Manila presie b2 the Hon. *u/e %lipalaalthou/h it appears on recor that the ur/ent motion to recall +rit of eEecution file b2 Mrs.Pere0 in the basic civil case ;'6B$ on September ;, &'?;, +as over the si/nature of one Rub2aia of the la+ firm of 9rispin 8ai0as J %ssociates9 as counsel for Mrs. Pere0. It is to berecalle that the sai ur/ent motion is the same motion iscusse above, +hich, curiousl2enou/h, anteate b2 at least one month the liftin/ of the +rit of preliminar2 in5unction issue incivil case $7;).

%ORDINC", the motion for partial reconsieration is enie. Our ecision of Ma2 )), &'?(is hereb2 moifie in the sense that %tt2s. rispin D. 8ai0as an %.N. 8olinao, *r. shall pa2

5ointl2 an severall2 the treble costs assesse a/ainst the petitioners. SO ORD!R!D.


23/128

TOMAS P. TAN, JR

VS. ATTY. HAIDE B.VISTA-GUMBA

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

RESOLUTION

VILLARAMA, JR.,J.:

Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Tomas P. Tan, Jr.

against respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba for gross unetical conduct.

Te facts are as follo!s.

"omplainant, a self-made businessman !it a tailoring sop in #aga "ity, filed a verified

"omplaint[1]against respondent, also a resident of #aga "ity, before te $ntegrated Bar of te Pilippines

%$BP&-"amarines 'ur "apter. Pursuant to 'ection (, Paragrap ),[2]*ule ()+-B of te *evised *ules of

"ourt, as amended, te said "apter for!arded te complaint to te $BP Board of Governors for proper

disposition.

"omplainant narrated tat sometime in August , respondent ased to be lent )/,. .

*espondent assured im tat se !ould pay te principal plus (0 interest per annum after one year. 'e

lie!ise offered by !ay of security a (/-s1uare-meter parcel of land located in #aga "ity, covered by

Transfer "ertificate of Title %T"T& #o. // [3]and registered in er fater2s name. *espondent so!ed

complainant a 'pecial Po!er of Attorney[4]%'PA& e3ecuted by respondent2s parents, and verbally assured

complainant tat se !as autori4ed to sell or encumber te entire property. "omplainant consulted one

Atty. *a1uel Payte and !as assured tat te documents provided by respondent !ere valid. Tus,

complainant agreed to lend money to respondent. 5it te elp of Atty. Payte, respondent e3ecuted in

complainant2s favor an 6open7 8eed of Absolute 'ale over te said parcel of land, attacing tereto te

'PA. "omplainant !as made to believe tat if respondent fails to pay te full amount of te loan !it

interest on due date, te deed of sale may be registered. Accordingly, e gave te amount of )/,.

to respondent.

*espondent, o!ever, defaulted on er loan obligation and failed to pay te same despite

complainant2s repeated demands. 9eft !it no recourse, complainant !ent to te *egister of 8eeds to

register te sale, only to find out tat respondent deceived im since te 'PA did not give respondent te

po!er to sell te property but only empo!ered respondent to mortgage te property solely to bans.

"omplainant manifested tat e ad lent money before to oter people albeit for insignificant amounts,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn1


24/128

but tis !as te first time tat e e3tended a loan to a la!yer and it bore disastrous results. He submitted

tat respondent committed fraud and deceit or conduct unbecoming of a la!yer.

:pon being ordered by te $BP to ans!er te above allegations, respondent filed a ;otion for

, (, te $BP Board of Governors adopted and approved te report and

recommendation of "ommissioner 8e 9a *ama, Jr. in its *esolution #o. $-(-CC?D

*


25/128

continue as an officer of te court.[13]Verily, "anon @ of te "ode of Professional *esponsibility mandates

all la!yers to upold at all times te dignity and integrity of te legal profession. 9a!yers are similarly

re1uired, under *ule (.(, "anon ( of te same "ode, not to engage in any unla!ful, disonest and

immoral or deceitful conduct.

Here, respondent2s actions clearly so! tat se deceived complainant into lending money to er

troug te use of documents and false representations and taing advantage of er education and

complainant2s ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by complainant, e !ould ave never granted

te loan to respondent !ere it not for respondent2s misrepresentation tat se !as autori4ed to sell te

propertyand if respondent ad not led im to believe tat e could register te 6open7 deed of sale if se

fails to pay te loan.[14] By er misdeed, respondent as eroded not only complainant2s perception of te

legal profession but te public2s perception as !ell. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for !ic

se may be disciplined, follo!ing 'ection @, *ule ()> of te *evised *ules of "ourt, as amended, !icprovidesD

'


26/128

believes tat a suspension of si3 monts is sufficient. After all, suspension is not primarily intended as a

punisment, but as a means to protect te public and te legal profession.[1"]

&HERE'ORE, respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba is found administratively liable for grave

misconduct. 'e isSUSPENDEDfrom te practice of la! for SI( )!* MONTHS, effective immediately,

!it a !arning tat a repetition of te same or a similar act !ill be dealt !it more severely.

9et notice of tis *esolution be spread in respondent2s record as an attorney in tis "ourt, and

notice tereof be served on te $ntegrated Bar of te Pilippines and on te ffice of te "ourt

Administrator for circulation to all te courts concerned.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9000.htm#_ftn17


27/128


Manila

!N 8%N

ar Ma&r No. 553 J0-# 1=, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,vs.TE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., responent.

R ! SO " # T I O N

REGALADO, J.:

Petitioner pra2s this ourt 9to orer the responent to cease an esist from issuin/avertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of anneEes 9%9 an 989 3of sai petition4an to perpetuall2 prohibit persons or entities from main/ avertisements pertainin/ to theeEercise of the la+ profession other than those allo+e b2 la+.9

The avertisements complaine of b2 herein petitioner are as follo+s@

Anne3 A

S!R!T M%RRI%C!P7?B.BB for a vali marria/e.Info on DIVOR!. %8S!N!.

%NN#"M!NT. VIS%.

TH! Please call@ 7)&-B$?$ "!C%" 7)&$);), 7)))B6& "INI, IN. (@;B amK?@BB pm $-Flr. Victoria 8l/., #N %ve., Mla.

Anne3 B

C#%M DIVOR!.

DON P%RGINSON

an %ttorne2 in Cuam, is /ivin/ FR!! 8OOGS on Cuam Divorce throu/h The"e/al linic be/innin/ Mona2 to Fria2 urin/ office hours.

Cuam ivorce. %nnulment of Marria/e. Immi/ration Problems, Visa !Et.uota:Non->uota Res. J Special Retiree1s Visa. Declaration of %bsence.


28/128

Remarria/e to Filipina Fiancees. %option. Investment in the Phil. #S:Forei/nVisa for Filipina Spouse:hilren. all Marivic.

TH! $F Victoria 8l/. 6)' #N %ve., "!C%" !rmita, Manila nr. #S !mbass2"INI, IN.1Tel. 7)&-$);)A 7)&-$)7&A 7))-)B6&A 7)&-B$?$

It is the submission of petitioner that the avertisements above reprouce are champterous,unethical, emeanin/ of the la+ profession, an estructive of the confience of the communit2in the inte/rit2 of the members of the bar an that, as a member of the le/al profession, he isashame an offene b2 the sai avertisements, hence the reliefs sou/ht in his petition ashereinbefore >uote.

In its ans+er to the petition, responent amits the fact of publication of sai avertisement atits instance, but claims that it is not en/a/e in the practice of la+ but in the renerin/ of 9le/alsupport services9 throu/h parale/als +ith the use of moern computers an electronicmachines. Responent further ar/ues that assumin/ that the services avertise are le/alservices, the act of avertisin/ these services shoul be allo+e supposel2in the li/ht of the case of John R. Bates and :an 4;%teen "s. %tate Bar of Arizona,2reportel2ecie b2 the #nite States Supreme ourt on *une $, &'$$.

onsierin/ the critical implications on the le/al profession of the issues raise herein, +ere>uire the 3&4 Inte/rate 8ar of the Philippines 3I8P4, 3)4 Philippine 8ar %ssociation 3P8%4, 3;4Philippine "a+2ers1 %ssociation 3P"%4, 364 #.P. omens "a+2ers1 ircle 3I"OI4, 374 omen"a+2ers %ssociation of the Philippines 3"%P4, an 3?4 Feeracion International e %bo/aas3FID%4 to submit their respective position papers on the controvers2 an, thereafter, theirmemorana. 3The sai bar associations reail2 respone an eEtene their valuableservices an cooperation of +hich this ourt taes note +ith appreciation an /ratitue.

The main issues pose for resolution before the ourt are +hether or not the services offereb2 responent, The "e/al linic, Inc., as avertise b2 it constitutes practice of la+ an, ineither case, +hether the same can properl2 be the sub5ect of the avertisements hereincomplaine of.

8efore proceein/ +ith an in-epth anal2sis of the merits of this case, +e eem it proper anenli/htenin/ to present hereuner eEcerpts from the respective position papers aopte b2 theaforementione bar associations an the memorana submitte b2 them on the issues involvein this bar matter.

&. 1nte!rated Bar of the )hilippines@

EEE EEE EEE

Not+ithstanin/ the subtle manner b2 +hich responent eneavore toistin/uish the t+o terms, i.e., 9le/al support services9 "is+a+"is9le/al services9,common sense +oul reail2 ictate that the same are essentiall2 +ithoutsubstantial istinction. For +ho coul en2 that ocument search, evience/atherin/, assistance to la2man in nee of basic institutional services from/overnment or non-/overnment a/encies lie birth, marria/e, propert2, orbusiness re/istration, obtainin/ ocuments lie clearance, passports, local orforei/n visas, constitutes practice of la+


29/128

EEE EEE EEE

The Inte/rate 8ar of the Philippines 3I8P4 oes not +ish to mae issue +ithresponent1s forei/n citations. Suffice it to state that the I8P has mae itsposition manifest, to +it, that it stron/l2 opposes the vie+ espouse b2responent 3to the effect that toa2 it is alri/ht to avertise one1s le/al services4.

The I8P accorin/l2 eclares in no uncertain terms its opposition to responent1sact of establishin/ a 9le/al clinic9 an of concomitantl2 avertisin/ the samethrou/h ne+spaper publications.

The I8P +oul therefore invoe the aministrative supervision of this Honorableourt to perpetuall2 restrain responent from unertain/ hi/hl2 unethicalactivities in the fiel of la+ practice as aforeescribe.4

EEE EEE EEE

%. The use of the name 9The "e/al linic, Inc.9 /ives the impression thatresponent corporation is bein/ operate b2 la+2ers an that it reners le/alservices.

hile the responent repeatel2 enies that it offers le/al services to thepublic, the avertisements in >uestion /ive the impression thatresponent is offerin/ le/al services. The Petition in fact simpl2 assumesthis to be so, as earlier mentione, apparentl2 because this 3is4 the effectthat the avertisements have on the reain/ public.

The impression create b2 the avertisements in >uestion can be trace, first ofall, to the ver2 name bein/ use b2 responent K 9The "e/al linic, Inc.9 Such a

name, it is respectfull2 submitte connotes the renerin/ of le/al services forle/al problems, 5ust lie a meical clinic connotes meical services for meicalproblems. More importantl2, the term 9"e/al linic9 connotes la+2ers, as the termmeical clinic connotes octors.

Furthermore, the responent1s name, as publishe in the avertisements sub5ectof the present case, appears +ith 3the4 scale3s4 of 5ustice, +hich all the morereinforces the impression that it is bein/ operate b2 members of the bar anthat it offers le/al services. In aition, the avertisements in >uestion appear+ith a picture an name of a person bein/ represente as a la+2er from Cuam,an this practicall2 removes +hatever oubt ma2 still remain as to the nature ofthe service or services bein/ offere.

It thus becomes irrelevant +hether responent is merel2 offerin/ 9le/al supportservices9 as claime b2 it, or +hether it offers le/al services as an2 la+2eractivel2 en/a/e in la+ practice oes.%n it becomes unnecessar2 to mae aistinction bet+een 9le/al services9 an 9le/al support services,9 as theresponent +oul have it. The avertisements in >uestion leave no room foroubt in the mins of the reain/ public that le/al services are bein/ offere b2la+2ers, +hether true or not.


30/128

8. The avertisements in >uestion are meant to inuce the performance of actscontrar2 to la+, morals, public orer an public polic2.

It ma2 be concee that, as the responent claims, the avertisements in>uestion are onl2 meant to inform the /eneral public of the services bein/ offereb2 it. Sai avertisements, ho+ever, emphasi0e to Cuam ivorce, an an2 la+

stuent ou/ht to no+ that uner the Famil2 oe, there is onl2 one instance+hen a forei/n ivorce is reco/ni0e, an that is@

%rticle )?. . . .

here a marria/e bet+een a Filipino citi0en an a forei/ner isvalil2 celebrate an a di"orce is thereafter "alidly obtainedabroad by the alien spouse capacitatin! him or her to remarry, theFilipino spouse shall have capacit2 to remarr2 uner Philippine"a+.

It must not be for/otten, too, that the Famil2 oe 3efines4 a marria/e asfollo+s@

%rticle &. Marria/e is special contract of permanent unionbet+eena man an +oman entere into accorance +ith la+ for theestablishment of con5u/al an famil2 life.1t is the foundation of thefamily and an in"iolable social institution +hose nature,conse>uences, an incients are /overne b2 la+ an not sub5ectto stipulation, eEcept that marria/e settlements ma2 fiE thepropert2 relation urin/ the marria/e +ithin the limits provie b2this oe.

82 simpl2 reain/ the >uestione avertisements, it is obvious that the messa/ebein/ conve2e is that Filipinos can avoi the le/al conse>uences of a marria/ecelebrate in accorance +ith our la+, b2 simpl2 /oin/ to Cuam for a ivorce.This is not onl2 misleain/, but encoura/es, or serves to inuce, violation ofPhilippine la+. %t the ver2 least, this can be consiere 9the ar sie9 of le/alpractice, +here certain efects in Philippine la+s are eEploite for the sae ofprofit. %t +orst, this is outri/ht malpractice.

Rule &.B). K % la+2er shall not counsel or abet activities aime atefiance of the la+ or at lessenin/ confience in the le/al s2stem.

In aition, it ma2 also be relevant to point out that avertisements such as that

sho+n in %nneE 9%9 of the Petition, +hich contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle+ith the +ors 9*ust Marrie9 on its bumper an seems to aress thoseplannin/ a 9secret marria/e,9 if not su//estin/ a 9secret marria/e,9 maes li/ht ofthe 9special contract of permanent union,9 the inviolable social institution,9 +hichis ho+ the Famil2 oe escribes marria/e, obviousl2 to emphasi0e its sanctit2an inviolabilit2. orse, this particular avertisement appears to encoura/emarria/es celebrate in secrec2, +hich is su//estive of immoral publication ofapplications for a marria/e license.


31/128

If the article 9RE for "e/al Problems9 is to be revie+e, it can reail2 beconclue that the above impressions one ma2 /ather from the avertisementsin >uestion are accurate. The Sharon uneta-Cabb2 oncepcion eEample aloneconfirms +hat the avertisements su//est. Here it can be seen that criminal actsare bein/ encoura/e or committe3a bi/amous marria/e in Hon/ Gon/ or "as Ve/as4 +ith impunit2 simpl2 because

the 5urisiction of Philippine courts oes not eEten to the place +here the crimeis committe.

!ven if it be assume, ar!uendo, 3that4 the 9le/al support services9 responentoffers o not constitute le/al services as commonl2 unerstoo, theavertisements in >uestion /ive the impression that responent corporation isbein/ operate b2 la+2ers an that it offers le/al services, as earlier iscusse.Thus, the onl2 lo/ical conse>uence is that, in the e2es of an orinar2 ne+spaperreaer, members of the bar themselves are encoura/in/ or inucin/ theperformance of acts +hich are contrar2 to la+, morals, /oo customs an thepublic /oo, thereb2 estro2in/ an emeanin/ the inte/rit2 of the 8ar.

EEE EEE EEE

It is respectfull2 submitte that responent shoul be en5oine from causin/ thepublication of the avertisements in >uestion, or an2 other avertisements similarthereto. It is also submitte that responent shoul be prohibite from furtherperformin/ or offerin/ some of the services it presentl2 offers, or, at the ver2least, from offerin/ such services to the public in /eneral.

The I8P is a+are of the fact that proviin/ computeri0e le/al research,electronic ata /atherin/, stora/e an retrieval, stanari0e le/al forms,investi/ators for /atherin/ of evience, an lie services +ill /reatl2 benefit thele/al profession an shoul not be stifle but instea encoura/e. Ho+ever,+hen the conuct of such business b2 non-members of the 8ar encroaches uponthe practice of la+, there can be no choice but to prohibit such business.

%mittel2, man2 of the services involve in the case at bar can be betterperforme b2 specialists in other fiels, such as computer eEperts, +ho b2reason of their havin/ evote time an effort eEclusivel2 to such fiel cannotfulfill the eEactin/ re>uirements for amission to the 8ar. To prohibit them from9encroachin/9 upon the le/al profession +ill en2 the profession of the /reatbenefits an avanta/es of moern technolo/2. Inee, a la+2er usin/ acomputer +ill be oin/ better than a la+2er usin/ a t2pe+riter, even if both are3e>ual4 in sill.

8oth the 8ench an the 8ar, ho+ever, shoul be careful not to allo+ or toleratethe ille/al practice of la+ in an2 form, not onl2 for the protection of members ofthe 8ar but also, an more importantl2, for the protection of the public.Technolo/ical evelopment in the profession ma2 be encoura/e +ithouttoleratin/, but instea ensurin/ prevention of ille/al practice.

There mi/ht be nothin/ ob5ectionable if responent is allo+e to perform all of itsservices, but onl2 if such services are mae available eEclusivel2 to members of


32/128

the 8ench an 8ar. Responent +oul then be offerin/ technical assistance, notle/al services. %lternativel2, the more ifficult tas of carefull2 istin/uishin/bet+een +hich service ma2 be offere to the public in /eneral an +hich shoulbe mae available eEclusivel2 to members of the 8ar ma2 be unertaen. This,ho+ever, ma2 re>uire further proceein/s because of the factual consierationsinvolve.

It must be emphasi0e, ho+ever, that some of responent1s services ou/ht to beprohibite outri/ht, such as acts +hich ten to su//est or inuce celebrationabroa of marria/es +hich are bi/amous or other+ise ille/al an voi unerPhilippine la+. hile responent ma2 not be prohibite from simpl2isseminatin/ information re/arin/ such matters, it must be re>uire to inclue,in the information /iven, a isclaimer that it is not authori0e to practice la+, thatcertain course of action ma2 be ille/al uner Philippine la+, that it is notauthori0e or capable of renerin/ a le/al opinion, that a la+2er shoul beconsulte before eciin/ on +hich course of action to tae, an that it cannotrecommen an2 particular la+2er +ithout sub5ectin/ itself to possible sanctionsfor ille/al practice of la+.

If responent is allo+e to avertise, avertisin/ shoul be irecte eEclusivel2at members of the 8ar, +ith a clear an unmistaable isclaimer that it is notauthori0e to practice la+ or perform le/al services.

The benefits of bein/ assiste b2 parale/als cannot be i/nore. 8ut nobo2shoul be allo+e to represent himself as a 9parale/al9 for profit, +ithout suchterm bein/ clearl2 efine b2 rule or re/ulation, an +ithout an2 ae>uate aneffective means of re/ulatin/ his activities. %lso, la+ practice in a corporate formma2 prove to be avanta/eous to the le/al profession, but before allo+ance ofsuch practice ma2 be consiere, the corporation1s %rticle of Incorporation an82-la+s must conform to each an ever2 provision of the oe of Professional

Responsibilit2 an the Rules of ourt. 5

). )hilippine Bar Association@

EEE EEE EEE.

Responent asserts that it 9is not en/a/e in the practice of la+ but en/a/e in/ivin/ le/al support services to la+2ers an la2men, throu/h eEperienceparale/als, +ith the use of moern computers an electronic machines9 3pars. )an ;, omment4. This is absur. #n>uestionabl2, responent1s acts of holin/out itself to the public uner the trae name 9The "e/al linic, Inc.,9 an solicitin/

emplo2ment for its enumerate services fall +ithin the realm of a practice +hichthus 2iels itself to the re/ulator2 po+ers of the Supreme ourt. For responentto sa2 that it is merel2 en/a/e in parale/al +or is to stretch creulit2.Responent1s o+n commercial avertisement +hich announces a certainAtty.Don )ar/insonto be hanlin/ the fiels of la+ belies its pretense. From allinications, responent 9The "e/al linic, Inc.9 is offerin/ an renerin/ le!alser"ices throu/h its reserve of la+2ers. It has been hel that the practice of la+ isnot limite to the conuct of cases in court, but inclues ra+in/ of ees,incorporation, renerin/ opinions, and ad"isin! clients as to their le!al ri!ht and


33/128

then ta/e them to an attorney and as/ the latter to loo/ after their case incourtSee Martin, "e/al an *uicial !thics, &'(6 e., p. ;'4.

It is apt to recall that onl2 natural personscan en/a/e in the practice of la+, ansuch limitation cannot be evae b2 a corporation emplo2in/ competent la+2ersto practice for it. Obviousl2, this is the scheme or evice b2 +hich responent

9The "e/al linic, Inc.9 hols out itself to the public an solicits emplo2ment of itsle/al services. It is an odious "ehiclefor eception, especiall2 so +hen the publiccannot ventilate an2 /rievance for malpracticea/ainst the business conuit.Precisel2, the limitation of practice of la+ to persons +ho have been ul2amitte as members of the 8ar 3Sec. &, Rule &;(, Revise Rules of ourt4 is tosub5ect the members to the discipline of the Supreme ourt. %lthou/hresponent uses its business name, the persons an the la+2ers +ho act for itare sub5ect to court iscipline. The practice of la+ is not a profession open to all+ho +ish to en/a/e in it nor can it be assi/ne to another 3See 7 %m. *ur. )$B4.It is apersonal ri!ht limite to persons +ho have >ualifie themselves uner thela+. It follo+s that not onl2 responent but also all the persons +ho are actin/ forresponent are the persons en/a/e in unethical la+ practice.

;. )hilippine Layers; Association@

The Philippine "a+2ers1 %ssociation1s position, in ans+er to the issues stateherein, are +it@

&. The "e/al linic is en/a/e in the practice of la+A

). Such practice is unauthori0eA

;. The avertisements complaine of are not onl2 unethical, but also misleain/

an patentl2 immoralA an

6. The Honorable Supreme ourt has the po+er to supress an punish the "e/allinic an its corporate officers for its unauthori0e practice of la+ an for itsunethical, misleain/ an immoral avertisin/.

EEE EEE EEE

Responent posits that is it not en/a/e in the practice of la+. It claims that itmerel2 reners 9le/al support services9 to ans+ers, liti/ants an the /eneralpublic as enunciate in the Primar2 Purpose lause of its %rticle3s4 ofIncorporation. 3See pa/es ) to 7 of Responent1s omment4. 8ut its avertise

services, as enumerate above, clearl2 an convincin/l2 sho+ that it is ineeen/a/e in la+ practice, albeit outsie of court.

%s avertise, it offers the /eneral public its avisor2 services on Persons anFamil2 Relations "a+, particularl2 re/arin/ forei/n ivorces, annulment ofmarria/es, secret marria/es, absence an aoptionA Immi/ration "a+s,particularl2 on visa relate problems, immi/ration problemsA the Investments "a+of the Philippines an such other relate la+s.


34/128

Its avertise services unmistaabl2 re>uire the application of the aforesai la+,the le/al principles an proceures relate thereto, the le/al avices basethereon an +hich activities call for le/al trainin/, no+le/e an eEperience.

%ppl2in/ the test lai o+n b2 the ourt in the aforecite %/rava ase, theactivities of responent fall s>uarel2 an are embrace in +hat la+2ers an

la2men e>uall2 term as 9the practice of la+.9=

6. $.).ualifie persons or entities +ho ma2 be en/a/e in the practiceof la+.

%t present, becomin/ a la+2er re>uires one to tae a ri/orous four-2ear course ofstu2 on top of a four-2ear bachelor of arts or sciences course an then to taean pass the bar eEaminations. Onl2 then, is a la+2er >ualifie to practice la+.

hile the use of a parale/al is sanctione in man2 5urisiction as an ai to theaministration of 5ustice, there are in those 5urisictions, courses of stu2 an:orstanars +hich +oul >ualif2 these parale/als to eal +ith the /eneral public assuch. hile it ma2 no+ be the opportune time to establish these courses of stu2an:or stanars, the fact remains that at present, these o not eEist in thePhilippines. In the meantime, this Honorable ourt ma2 ecie to maemeasures to protect the /eneral public from bein/ eEploite b2 those +ho ma2be ealin/ +ith the /eneral public in the /uise of bein/ 9parale/als9 +ithout bein/>ualifie to o so.

In the same manner, the /eneral public shoul also be protecte from thean/ers +hich ma2 be brou/ht about b2 avertisin/ of le/al services. hile itappears that la+2ers are prohibite uner the present oe of ProfessionalResponsibilit2 from avertisin/, it appears in the instant case that le/al servicesare bein/ avertise not b2 la+2ers but b2 an entit2 staffe b2 9parale/als.9learl2, measures shoul be taen to protect the /eneral public from fallin/ pre2to those +ho avertise le/al services +ithout bein/ >ualifie to offer suchservices. 8

% perusal of the >uestione avertisements of Responent, ho+ever, seems to/ive the impression that information re/arin/ valiit2 of marria/es, ivorce,annulment of marria/e, immi/ration, visa eEtensions, eclaration of absence,

aoption an forei/n investment, +hich are in essence, le/al matters , +ill be/iven to them if the2 avail of its services. The Responent1s name K The "e/allinic, Inc. K oes not help matters. It /ives the impression a/ain thatResponent +ill or can cure the le/al problems brou/ht to them. %ssumin/ thatResponent is, as claime, staffe purel2 b2 parale/als, it also /ives themisleain/ impression that there are la+2ers involve in The "e/al linic, Inc., asthere are octors in an2 meical clinic, +hen onl2 9parale/als9 are involve inThe "e/al linic, Inc.


35/128

Responent1s alle/ations are further belie b2 the ver2 amissions of itsPresient an ma5orit2 stocholer, %tt2. No/ales, +ho /ave an insi/ht on thestructure an main purpose of Responent corporation in the aforementione9Star+ee9 article.99

7.


36/128

conclusion that Responent is not unla+full2 practicin/ la+. In the same vein,ho+ever, the fact that the business of responent 3assumin/ it can be en/a/e ininepenentl2 of the practice of la+4 involves no+le/e of the la+ oes notnecessaril2 mae responent /uilt2 of unla+ful practice of la+.

. . . . Of necessit2, no one . . . . actin/ as a consultant can rener

effective service unless he is familiar +ith such statutes anre/ulations. He must be careful not to su//est a course of conuct+hich the la+ forbis. It seems . . . .clear that 3the consultant1s4no+le/e of the la+, an his use of that no+le/e as a factor ineterminin/ +hat measures he shall recommen, o notconstitute the practice of la+ . . . . It is not onl2 presume that allmen no+ the la+, but it is a fact that most men have consierableac>uaintance +ith broa features of the la+ . . . . Our no+le/eof the la+ K accurate or inaccurate K mouls our conuct notonl2 +hen +e are actin/ for ourselves, but +hen +e are servin/others. 8aners, li>uor ealers an la2men /enerall2 possessrather precise no+le/e of the la+s touchin/ their particular

business or profession. % /oo eEample is the architect, +ho mustbe familiar +ith 0onin/, builin/ an fire prevention coes, factor2an tenement house statutes, an +ho ra+s plans anspecification in harmon2 +ith the la+. This is not practicin/ la+.

8ut suppose the architect, ase b2 his client to omit a fire to+er,replies that it is re>uire b2 the statute. Or the inustrial relationseEpert cites, in support of some measure that he recommens, aecision of the National "abor Relations 8oar. %re the2 practicin/la+ In m2 opinion, the2 are not, provie no separate fee ischar/e for the le/al avice or information, an the le/al >uestionis suborinate an inciental to a ma5or non-le/al problem.

It is lar/el2 a matter of e/ree an of custom.

If it +ere usual for one intenin/ to erect a builin/ on his lan toen/a/e a la+2er to avise him an the architect in respect to thebuilin/ coe an the lie, then an architect +ho performe thisfunction +oul probabl2 be consiere to be trespassin/ onterritor2 reserve for license attorne2s. "ie+ise, if the inustrialrelations fiel ha been pre-empte b2 la+2ers, or custom placea la+2er al+a2s at the elbo+ of the la2 personnel man. 8ut this isnot the case. The most important bo2 of the inustrial relationseEperts are the officers an business a/ents of the labor unionsan fe+ of them are la+2ers. %mon/ the lar/er corporateemplo2ers, it has been the practice for some 2ears to ele/atespecial responsibilit2 in emplo2ee matters to a mana

pale part 1 full cases

Documents