palen

7/21/2019 PALEN

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/palen 1/11

DECISION PER CURIAM:

This case stems from an administrative complaint [1] filedby Rolando Pacana, Jr. against Atty. Maricel Pascal!"ope#charging the latter $ith flagrant violation of the provisions of the

%ode of Professional Responsibility.[&] %omplainant alleges thatrespondent committed acts constitting conflict of interest,dishonesty, inflence peddling, and failre to render anacconting of all the money and properties received by her f

romcomplainant.

'n Janary &, &((&, complainant $as the 'perations)irector for Mltitel %ommnications %orporation *M%%+. M%%is an affiliate company of Mltitel nternational -oldings%orporation *Mltitel+. ometime in Jly &((&, M%% changed its

name to Precedent %ommnications %orporation *Precedent+.[/]

According to complainant, in mid!&((&, Mltitel $as

besieged by demand letters from its members and investorsbecase of the failre of its investment schemes. -e allegesthat he earned the ire of Mltitel investors after becoming theassignee of ma0ority of the shares of stoc of Precedent andafter being appointed as trstee of a fnd amonting to ThirtyMillion Pesos *P/(,(((,(((.((+ deposited at Real 2an.

)istraght, complainant soght the advice of respondent$ho also happened to be a member of the %oples for %hrist, areligios organi#ation $here complainant and his $ife $ere alsoactive members. 3rom then on, complainant and respondentconstantly commnicated, $ith the former disclosing all hisinvolvement and interests in Precedent and Precedents relation$ith Mltitel. Respondent gave legal advice to complainant andeven helped him prepare standard 4itclaims for creditors. nsm, complainant avers that a la$yer!client relationship $asestablished bet$een him and respondent althogh no formal

docment $as e5ected by them at that time. A Retainer

Agreement[6] dated Janary 17, &((/ $as proposed byrespondent. %omplainant, ho$ever, did not sign the saidagreement becase respondent verbally ased for 'ne-ndred Thosand Pesos *P1((,(((.((+ as acceptance feeand a 178 contingency fee pon collection of the overpaymentmade by Mltitel to 2enefon,[7] a telecommnications company

based in3inland. %omplainant fond the proposed fees to beprohibitive and not $ithin his means.[9] -ence, the retainer agreement remained nsigned.[:]

After a fe$ $ees, complainant $as srprised to receive

a demand letter from respondent[;] asing for the retrn andimmediate settlement of the fnds invested by respondentsclients in Mltitel. <hen complainant confronted respondentabot the demand letter, the latter e5plained that she had tosend it so that her clients defraded investors of Mltitel $old

no$ that she $as doing something for them and assredcomplainant that there $as nothing to $orry abot.[=]

2oth parties contined to commnicate and e5change

information regarding the persistent demands made by Mltitelinvestors against complainant. 'n these occasions, respondentimpressed pon complainant that she can closely $or $ithofficials of the Anti!Money "andering %oncil *AM"%+, the)epartment of Jstice *)'J+, the >ational 2rea of nvestigation *>2+, the 2rea of mmigration and )eportations

*2)+,[1(]

and the ecrities and ?5change %ommission *?%+[11] to resolve complainants problems. Respondent alsoconvinced complainant that in order to be absolved from anyliability $ith respect to the investment scam, he mst be able tosho$ to the )'J that he $as $illing to divest any and all of hisinterests in Precedent inclding the fnds assigned to him byMltitel.[1&]

Respondent also ased money from complainantallegedly for safeeeping to be sed only for his case $henever necessary. %omplainant agreed and gave her an initial amont

of P=((,(((.(( $hich $as received by respondent herself.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn2
























7/21/2019 PALEN


[1/] ometime thereafter, complainant again gaverespondent P1,(((,(((.((.[16] aid amonts $ere all part of Precedents collections and sales proceeds $hich complainantheld as assignee of the companys properties.[17]

<hen complainant $ent to the @nited tates *@+, he

received several messages from respondent sent throghelectronic mail *e!mail+ and short messaging system *M, or te5t messages+ $arning him not to retrn to the Philippinesbecase Rosario 2alad0ay, president of Mltitel, $as arre

stedand that complainant may later on be implicated in Mltitelsfailed investment system. Respondent even said that ten *1(+arrest $arrants and a hold departre order had been issedagainst him. %omplainant, thereafter, received several e!mailmessages from respondent pdating him of the stats of thecase against Mltitel and promised that she $ill settle the matter

discreetly $ith government officials she can closely $or $ith inorder to clear complainants name.[19] n t$o separate e!mailmessages,[1:] respondent again ased money fromcomplainant, P&((,((( of $hich $as handed by complainants$ife $hile respondent $as confined in aint "es -ospital after giving birth,[1;] and another P:((,((( allegedly to be given to the>2.[1=]

Throgh respondents persistent promises to settle all

complainants legal problems, respondent $as able to convince

complainant $ho $as still in the @ to e5ecte a deed of assignment in favor of respondent allo$ing the latter to retrieve1:; bo5es containing celllar phones and accessories stored incomplainants hose and inside a $arehose. [&(] -e also signeda blan deed of sale athori#ing respondent to sell his &((&s# Trooper.[&1]

ometime in April &((/, $ary that respondent may not be

able to handle his legal problems, complainant $as advised byhis family to hire another la$yer. <hen respondent ne$ abot

this, she $rote to complainant via e!mail, as follo$s

)ear 2tchie, -iB ' ka lang C -ope yo are fine. orry if shoced yo bt had to do it as your friend andlawyer . The charges are all non!bailable bt all

the same as the ?% report told yo before. Thefindings are the same, i.e. yor company $as thefront for the frad of Mltitel and that fnds $ereprovided yo. anticipated this, that is $hy really pshed for a4itclaim. Rolly is $illing to retrn the %ross$ind,laptap (sic) and [P]alm [P]ilot. Manny %ancio reallyhelped. Anthony na lang. Then, $ill need theacconting of all the fnds yo received from the

sale of the phones, every employees anddirectors[] 4itclaim *inclding yors+, the fndstransmitted to the clients throgh me, the fndsyo tili#ed, and $hatelse (sic) is still nremitted,every centavo mst be acconted for as )'J and>2 can have the accont opened. $ill also need the P/( M proof of deposit $ithReal [2]an and the trst given [to] yo. o $e caninform them [that] it $as not toched by yo.

have been informed by ?fie that yor family islooing at hiring %oco Pimentel. no$ him very$ell as his sister D$en is my best friend. I haveno proble if you hire hi bu! I will be handsoff" I wor# differen!ly kasi . n this cases (sic),yo cannot be highprofile (sic) becase it is theclients $ho $ill be sacrificed at the e5pense of thefame of the la$yer. I have !o wor# $uie!ly anddis%ree!ly" >o fnfare. Jst lie $hat did for yor

gys in the ?%. have to $or $ith people am




















7/21/2019 PALEN


comfortable $ith. Efren San!os will si&n as your lawyer al!hou&h I will do all !he wor#" -e canhelp $ith all his connections. Eals friend in the >2is the one is (sic) charge of organi#ed crime $ho isthe entity *sic+ $ho has yor $arrant. My la$partner $as the state prosector for financial

frad. 2asically $e have it covered in all aspectsand all departments. am 0st trying to li4idatethe phones have allotted for yo s ana (sic) for yor trooper kasi $hether $e lie it or not, $e haveto give this agencies (sic) to mae or $or easier according to Eal. The fnds $ith Micey arealready acconted in the 4it claims (sic) asattorneys (sic)fees. hope he $ill be able to send itso $e have fnds to $or $ith. As for yor ids, legally they can stay here bt

recently, it is the children $ho (sic) the irate clientsand government officials harass and idnap tomae the individals they $ant to come ot fromhiding (sic). do not $ant that to happen. Things$ill be really easier on my side. Please do no! worry" 'ive e ( on!hs !oa#e i! all disappear" )u! if you hire Co%o* Iwill &ive hi !he free hand !o wor# wi!h your %ase" Please trst me. have never let yo do$n,

have C told yo this $ill happen bt $e are readyand prepared. The clients $ho received thephones $ill stand by yo and mae yo the hero inthis scandal. I will s!and by you always" +his isy e,per!ise" TR@T meB That is all. Fo havean angel on yor side. Al$ays pray thogh to thebest legal mind p there. Fo $ill be oB %andy[&&]

'n Jly 6, &((/, contrary to respondents advice,complainant retrned to the contry. 'n the eve of his departrefrom the @nited tates, respondent called p complainant andconveniently informed him that he has been cleared by the >2and the 2).[&/]

Abot a month thereafter, respondent personally met $ithcomplainant and his $ife and told them that she has alreadyaccmlated P1&,7((,(((.(( as attorneys fees and $as $illingto give P&,(((,(((.(( to complainant in appreciation for hishelp. Respondent allegedly told complainant that $ithot hishelp, she $old not have earned sch amont. 'ver$helmedand relieved, complainant accepted respondents offer btrespondent, later on, changed her mind and told complainantthat she $old instead invest theP&,(((,(((.(( on his behalf ina bsiness ventre. %omplainant declined and e5plained to

respondent that he and his family needed the money instead tocover their daily e5penses as he $as no longer employed.Respondent allegedly agreed, bt she failed to flfill her promise.[&6]

Respondent even pblicly annonced in their religiosorgani#ation that she $as able to help settle the ten *1(+$arrants of arrest and hold departre order issed againstcomplainant and narrated ho$ she $as able to defendcomplainant in the said cases.[&7]

2y April &((6, ho$ever, complainant noticed thatrespondent $as evading him. Respondent $old either refseto retrn complainants call or $old abrptly terminate their telephone conversation, citing several reasons. This $ent on for several months.[&9] n one instance, $hen complainant asedrespondent for an pdate on the collection of 2enefonsobligation to Precedent $hich respondent had previosly taencharge of, respondent arrogantly ans$ered that she $as verybsy and that she $old read 2enefons letter only $hen shefond time to do so.











7/21/2019 PALEN


'n >ovember =, &((6, fed p and dismayed $ithrespondents arrogance and evasiveness, complainant $roterespondent a letter formally asing for a fll acconting of all themoney, docments and properties given to the latter.[&:] Respondent rendered an acconting throgh a letter dated)ecember &(, &((6.[&;] <hen complainant fond respondents

e5planation to be inade4ate, he $rote a latter e5pressing hisconfsion abot the acconting.[&=] %omplainant repeated hisre4est for an adited financial report of all the properties trnedover to herG other$ise, he $ill be constrained to file

theappropriate case against respondent.[/(] Respondent replied,[/1] e5plaining that all the properties and cash trned over to her by complainant had been retrned to her clients $ho had moneyclaims against Mltitel. n e5change for this, she said that she$as able to secre 4itclaim docments clearing complainantfrom any liability.[/&] till nsatisfied, complainant decided to file

an affidavit!complaint[//]

against respondent before the%ommission on 2ar )iscipline of the ntegrated 2ar of thePhilippines *2P+ seeing the disbarment of respondent.

n her Ans$er!Affidavit,[/6] respondent vehemently denied

being the la$yer for Precedent. he maintained that no formalengagement $as e5ected bet$een her and complainant. heclaimed that she merely helped complainant by providing him$ith legal advice and assistance becase she personally ne$him, since they both belonged to the same religios

organi#ation.[/7]

Respondent insisted that she represented the grop of

investors of Mltitel and that she merely mediated in thesettlement of the claims her clients had against thecomplainant. he also averred that the reslts of the settlementbet$een both parties $ere flly docmented and acconted for.[/9] Respondent believes that her act in helping complainantresolve his legal problem did not violate any ethical standardand $as, in fact, in accord $ith Rle &.(& of the %ode of

Professional Responsibility.[/:]

To bolster her claim that the complaint $as $ithot basis,

respondent noted that a complaint for estafa $as also filedagainst her by complainant before the 'ffice of the %ityProsector in He#on %ity citing the same gronds. Thecomplaint $as, ho$ever, dismissed by Assistant %ity Prosector

Josephs Joannes -. Asis for insfficiency of evidence.[/;] Respondent arged that on this basis alone, theadministrative case mst also be dismissed.

n her Position Paper,[/=] respondent also 4estioned the

admissibility of the electronic evidence sbmitted bycomplainant to the 2Ps %ommission on 2ar )iscipline.Respondent maintained that the e!mail and the te5t messagesallegedly sent by respondent to complainant $ere of dobtflathenticity and shold be e5clded as evidence for failre to

conform to the Rles on ?lectronic ?vidence *A.M. >o. (1!:!(1!%+.

After de hearing, 2P nvestigating %ommissioner

Patric M. Eele# issed a Report andRecommendation[6(] finding that a la$yer!client relationship $asestablished bet$een respondent and complainant despite theabsence of a $ritten contract. The nvestigating %ommissioner also declared that respondent violated her dty to be candid, fair and loyal to her client $hen she allo$ed herself to represent

conflicting interests and failed to render a fll acconting of allthe cash and properties entrsted to her. 2ased on thesegronds, the nvestigating %ommissioner recommended her disbarment.

Respondent moved for reconsideration,[61] bt the 2P

2oard of Dovernors issed a Recommendation [6&] denying themotion and adopting the findings of the nvestigating%ommissioner.

The case no$ comes before this %ort for final action.


































7/21/2019 PALEN


<e affirm the findings of the 2P.Rle 17.(/, %anon 17 of the %ode of Professional

responsibility provides Rle 17.(/ A la$yer shall not represent conflicting

interests e5cept by $ritten consent of allconcerned given after fll disclosre of the facts.

This prohibition is fonded on principles of pblic policy,good taste[6/] and, more importantly, pon necessity. n thecorse of a la$yer!client relationship, the la$yer learns all thefacts connected $ith the clients case, inclding its $ea andstrong points. ch no$ledge mst be considered sacred andgarded $ith care. >o opportnity mst be given to him to tae

advantage of his clientG for if the confidence is absed, theprofession $ill sffer by the loss thereof. [66] t behooves la$yersnot only to eep inviolate the clients confidence, bt also toavoid the appearance of treachery and doble I dealing for onlythen can litigants be encoraged to entrst their secrets to their la$yers, $hich is paramont in the administration of 0stice. [67] tis for these reasons that $e have described the attorney!clientrelationship as one of trst and confidence of the highestdegree.[69]

Respondent mst have no$n that her act of constantlyand actively commnicating $ith complainant, $ho, at that time,$as beleagered $ith demands from investors of Mltitel,eventally led to the establishment of a la$yer!clientrelationship. Respondent cannot shield herself from theinevitable conse4ences of her actions by simply saying that theassistance she rendered to complainant $as only in the form of friendly accommodations,[6:] precisely becase at the time she$as giving assistance to complainant, she $as already privy tothe case of the opposing parties $ho had been referred to her

by the ?%.[6;]

Respondent also tries to disprove the e5istence of sch

relationship by arging that no $ritten contract for theengagement of her services $as ever forged bet$een her andcomplainant.[6=] This argment all the more reveals respondentspatent ignorance of fndamental la$s on contracts and of basic

ethical standards e5pected from an advocate of 0stice. The 2P$as correct $hen it said

The absence of a $ritten contract $ill not

preclde the finding that there $as a professionalrelationship bet$een the parties. Do%uen!aryforalis is no! an essen!ial eleen! in !heeployen! of an a!!orney- !he %on!ra%! aybe e,press or iplied" To establish the relation, itis sfficient that the advice and assistance of an

attorney is soght and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.[7(] *?mphasis spplied.+ Diven the sitation, the most decent and ethical thing

$hich respondent shold have done $as either to advisecomplainant to engage the services of another la$yer since she$as already representing the opposing parties, or to desist fromacting as representative of Mltitel investors and stand asconsel for complainant. he cannot be permitted to do bothbecase that $old amont to doble!dealing and violate or

ethical rles on conflict of interest. n Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat ,[71] $e e5plained the concept of

conflict of interest, ths

There is conflict of interest $hen a la$yer represents inconsistent interests of t$o or moreopposing parties. The test is $hether or not in



















7/21/2019 PALEN


behalf of one client, it is the la$yers dty to fightfor an isse or claim, bt it is his dty to oppose itfor the other client. n brief, if he arges for oneclient, this argment $ill be opposed by him $henhe arges for the other client. This rle covers notonly cases in $hich confidential commnications

have been confided, bt also those in $hich noconfidence has been besto$ed or $ill be sed. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptanceof the ne$ retainer $ill re4ire the attorney toperform an act $hich $ill in0riosly affect his firstclient in any matter in $hich he represents himand also $hether he $ill be called pon in his ne$relation to se against his first client anyno$ledge ac4ired throgh their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is

$hether the acceptance of a ne$ relation $illprevent an attorney from the fll discharge of hisdty of ndivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite sspicion of nfaithflness or doble dealingin the performance thereof.[7&]

ndbitably, respondent too advantage of complainants

hapless sitation, initially, by giving him legal advice and, later on, by soliciting money and properties from him. Thereafter,respondent impressed pon complainant that she had acted$ith tmost sincerity in helping him divest all the propertiesentrsted to him in order to absolve him from any liability. 2tsimltaneosly, she $as also doing the same thing to impresspon her clients, the party claimants against Mltitel, that she$as doing everything to reclaim the money they invested $ithMltitel. Respondent herself admitted to complainant that$ithot the latters help, she $old not have been able to earnas mch and that, as a toen of her appreciation, she $as$illing to share some of her earnings $ith complainant.[7/] %learly, respondents act is shocing, as it not only violated

Rle =.(&, %anon = of the %ode of Professional Responsibility,[76] bt also toyed $ith decency and good taste.

Respondent even had the temerity to boast that noMltitel client had ever complained of respondents nethicalbehavior.[77] This remar indbitably displays respondents grossignorance of disciplinary procedre in the 2ar. As a member of

the 2ar, she is e5pected to no$ that proceedings for disciplinary actions against any la$yer may be initiated andprosected by the 2P 2oard of Dovernors, motu proprio or pon referral by this %ort or by the 2oard of 'fficers of an 2P%hapter [79] even if no private individal files any administrativecomplaint.

@pon revie$, $e find no cogent reason to distrb the

findings and recommendations of the 2P nvestigating%ommissioner, as adopted by the 2P 2oard of Dovernors, on

the admissibility of the electronic evidence sbmitted bycomplainant. <e, accordingly, adopt the same in toto.

3inally, respondent arges that the recommendation of

the 2P 2oard of Dovernors to disbar her on the gronds of deceit, malpractice and other gross miscondct, aside fromviolation of the "a$yers 'ath, has been rendered moot andacademic by volntary termination of her 2P membership,allegedly after she had been placed nder the )epartment of Jstices <itness Protection Program.[7:] %onvenient as it may

be for respondent to sever her membership in the integratedbar, this %ort cannot allo$ her to do so $ithot resolving firstthis administrative case against her.

The resoltion of the administrative case filed against

respondent is necessary in order to determine the degree of her clpability and liability to complainant. The case may not bedismissed or rendered moot and academic by respondents actof volntarily terminating her membership in the 2ar regardlessof the reason for doing so. This is becase membership in the

2ar is a privilege brdened $ith conditions.[7;]

The condct of a















7/21/2019 PALEN


la$yer may mae him or her civilly, if not criminally, liable to hisclient or to third parties, and sch liability may be convenientlyavoided if this %ort $ere to allo$ volntary termination of membership. -ence, to terminate ones membership in the 2ar volntarily, it is imperative that the la$yer first prove that thevolntary $ithdra$al of membership is not a ploy to frther

pre0dice the pblic or to evade liability. >o sch proof e5ists inthe present case.

./ERE0ORE, respondent Attorney Maricel Pascal!

"ope# is hereby DIS)ARRED for representing conflictinginterests and for engaging in nla$fl, dishonest and deceitflcondct in violation of her "a$yers 'ath and the %ode of Professional Responsibility.

"et a copy of this )ecision be entered in the respondents

record as a member of the 2ar, and notice of the same beserved on the ntegrated 2ar of the Philippines, and on the'ffice of the %ort Administrator for circlation to all corts inthe contry.

SO ORDERED"

This is a complaint filed by smaela )imagiba against Atty. Jose

Montalvo for Malpractice, for stretching to almost a half acentry a litigation arising from the probate of a $ill of the late2enedicta de "os Reyes $hich institted smaela )imagiba asthe sole heir of all the properties.

The letter of the private complainant, smaela )imagiba,received on Janary 17,1=:7 by the preme %ort, states

555 555 555

The clients of Atty. Montalvo, namely )ionisio3ernande#, ?sebio Reyes, "isa Reyes, MarianoReyes, %esar Reyes, "eonor Reyes, filed a caseagainst me $ith the %ort of 3irst nstance of2lacan in 1=69 for annlment of sale and $asdoceted as %ivil %ase >o. 1(; of said %ort. This

case $as terminated annlling the sale, as perdecision in 1=76 in D.R. >o. "!791; and "!79&(.

'n Janary 1=, 1=77, 1 filed a case for Probate of <ill $ith the%ort of 3irst nstance of 2lacan, regarding the same propertysb0ect of the annlment of sale and $as doceted $ith the%ort of 3irst nstance of 2lacan as p. Proc. >o. ;/1!M."cily, the said case $as terminated on Jne &(, 1=7;,probating the said $ill. The oppositors in this case $ho are thesame persons mentioned above appealed this case to the

-igher %ort of the Philippines and $as decided by the -on.preme %ort of the Philippines on 'ctober 1&, 1=9: in D.R.>o. "!&/9/; and "!&/99&, affirming the decision of the "o$er%ortG

That after the decision of the above!mentioned case $aspromlgated, the same parties filed on Jne 7, 1=9; %ivil %ase>o. /9::!M $ith the %3 of 2lacan for annlment of $illG thiscase $as filed throgh their consel, Atty. Dregorio %enteno.

aid case $as dismissed by the %ort on 3ebrary 11, 1=:($ithot prononcement of costsG

That on Agst 1/,1=:1, again, the clients of Atty. Montalvo filed%ivil %ase >o. 6(:; $ith the %ort of 3irst nstance of 2lacanfor annlment of the said $illG this case $as again dismissed bythe %ort on )ecember &1, 1=:1G

That on April &&, 1=:&, again the same parties, throgh theirconsel Atty. Montalvo, filed another case $ith the %ort of 3irst

nstance of 2lacan, allegedly for Partition of the same property

7/21/2019 PALEN


mentioned in the probate of $ill $hich $as doceted as %ivil%ase >o. 6171. This case $as again dismissed by the %ort inits 'rder dated 'ctober 11, 1=:&G

That on May &7, 1=:&, still another case $as filed by the sameparties, throgh Atty. Montalvo, for specific performance, $ith

the %3 of 2lacan and $as doceted as %ivil %ase >o. 61;;!M. This case $as again dismissed by the %ort in its 'rderdated 'ctober &6,1=:/. 'n Agst 1&, 1=:6, the said case $asremanded to the %ort of Appeals, Manila, by the %ort of 3irstnstance of 2lacanG

till on April 7, 1=:6, $as again srprised to no$ that there$as another case filed by the same persons mentioned abovethrogh Atty. Montalvo $ith the %ort of 3irst nstance of2lacan and $as doceted as %ivil %ase >o. 667;. This case is

still pending before said cort.

n vie$ of the nmeros cases filed against me by the sameparties, throgh their consel, Atty. Montalvo, am constrainedto report to that [sic] -onorable %ort of the actation of saidla$yer $ho is a member of the Philippine 2ar attending to casesof non sit, $hich case harassment on may part.

The parties in this case are the ones in possession of theproperty b0ect of p. Proc. >o. ;/1 of the %3, 2lacan. They

can not be e0ected from the land holdings becase they claimthat the case filed by Atty. Montalvo is still pending in %ort.

n all the foregoing [sic] respectflly sbmit to this -onorable%ort for appropriate action.

555 555 555 1

n the Resoltion of the econd )ivision of the preme %ortdated Janary &:, 1=:7, the respondent Montalvo $as re4ired

to file an Ans$er $ithin ten days from notice.2

n his Ans$er dated March /, 1=:7, Montalvo, claims that thecase filed against the complainant $ere done.

555 555 555

at the instance of different partiesG or by reason of

different cases of action and all the pleadingsfiled by the ndersigned $ere andor the reslt ofa very painstaing, diligent, and carefl stdy andevalation of the facts and la$ involved thereinsch that even before signing the same, thendersigned has al$ays been of the honest andsincere belief that its filing is for the interest of 0stice K certainly never for harassmentG *&+ thatthe reason $hy the parties tenant cold not bee0ected from their land as stated by complainant in

her complaint is becase of the passage ofPresidential )ecree >o. &: $hich emancipated thefarmers from their bondage and declared them aso$ners of the rice and corn land they tilled ponthe passage of the decree copled $ith the veryacts of the complainant herselfG and that */+ thecomplainant by filing this instant complaint fordisbarment $ants to co$ and intimidate thendersigned in order to $ithdra$ as consel of hisclients becase she has been th$arted in her

erroneos belief that she o$ns e5clsively all theproperties comprising the estate of the late2enedicta de "os Reyes and cold not accept andtae into accont the reality that by virte of thefinal decision of the preme %ort in D.R. >o.791; and 79&( she is not the sole o$ner of thepresent estate of the deceased bt only a co!o$ner $ith the clients of the ndersigned. (

7/21/2019 PALEN


n addition, Montalvo stated that it $as )imagiba $ho refsed tobe bond by the preme %ort )ecision in D.R. >os. 791;and 79&(. 3

As a Re0oinder to the RespondentLs Ans$er, the complainant)imagiba stated that in %ivil %ase >o. /9::!M, the plaintiffs are

the same parties!oppositors $ho opposed the petition forprobate of the "ast <ill and Testament of the deceased2enedicta )e "os Reyes in pecial Proceeding >o. ;/1. Thesame case $as dismissed by the %ort of 3irst nstance of2lacan on the grond that the isse raised had been decidedby the %ort. 4

"ie$ise %ivil %ase >o. 6(:;!M $as also dismissed by 2ranch& of the %ort of 3irst nstance of 2lacan presided by JdgeRicardo %. Pronove, Jr., in the order of Agst &6, 1=:/ on the

grond of res judicata.

555 555 555

2t a closer analysis [sic+ it is clear that this actionis merely a rehash of the other cases previoslylitigated bet$een the plaintiffs and the defendantand already settled by final 0dgment. 5

n fact, in that case, Atty. Jose Montalvo, Jr., inclded himself as

one of the defendants.

555 555 555

3inally, the fact that plaintiffs consel, JoseMontalvo, Jr., had decided to 0oin case $ith theother plaintiffs in this case does no mean thatthere is no dentity of parties bet$een this caseand %ivil %ase >o. /9::!M. Atty. Jose Montalvo,Jr., is not alleged to be are party in interest in this

case so that lls inclsion herein as a p plaintiff cannot prodce any legal significance. 6

This not$ithstanding, Montalvo filed another case against)imagiba $hich $as doceted as %ivil %ase >o. 667;!M of the%3 2lacan $here the plaintiffs and cases of action $ere

again the same as /9::!M and 61;;!M. Again, the %3 2lacandismissed the cases.

'n April 19, 1=:7, the econd )ivision, follo$ing the procedrethen obtaining for the resoltion of disciplinary case againstla$yers, referred the case to the olicitor Deneral forinvestigation, report, and recommendation. 7

t $as only on May 6,1==(, or almost fifteen years later, that theentire records of Adm. %ase >o. 16&6 involving smaela

)imagiba verss Atty. Jose Montalvo $as retrned to the %learof %ort of the preme %ort by the 'ffice of the olicitorDeneral throgh olicitor Arora P. %ortes.

n smmary, the follo$ing are the litigations that ense from theprobate of the <ill of )e "os Reyes as fond by the olicitorDeneral involving the same parties and the same case ofaction

1. pecial Proceedings >o. ;/1 institted on

Janary 1 1=77. The <ill $as admitted to probatebt $as sbse4ently appealed.

&. CA-G.R. No. !""!-R . This $as an appeal ofthe decision in pec. Proc. >o. ;/1. The decision$as affirmed.

/. G.R. Nos. #-"$% and #-"$$" . This decisiondated 'ctober 1&, 1=9:, in the preme %ort,pheld the decision %A!D.R. >o. /1&&1!R, in

effect, affirming the de e5ection the <ill and the

7/21/2019 PALEN


capacity of the Testator as $ell as the instittion ofthe complainant.

6. %ivil %ase >o. /9::!M. 3iled in the %ort of3irst nstance of 2lacan on Jne 6, 1=9;, this$as a petition for the nllification of the <ill. This

$as dismissed.

7. Civil Case No. "&& 'ic 'as redocketed asCivil Case No. &*%-+ . This complaint dated>ovember /, 1=:( $as again dismissed.

9. Civil Case No. !,!-+ . This case, filed on3ebrary l9, 1=:&, for the partition of the propertyleft by the deceased 2enedicta )e los Reyes onthe grond of the nllity of the <ill, $as again

dismissed for failre to prosecte.

:. %ivil %ase >o. 61;;!M. 3iled on May &7,1=:&,$ith the %ort of 3irst nstance of 2lacan, 2ranch&, the respondent Atty. Montalvo, Jr., 0oined thedescendants of the collateral relatives of thedeceased )e "os Reyes against hereincomplainant )imagiba. This case $as dismissed.

;. Civil Case No. ,%-+ . %ivil %ase >o. 61;;!M

$as appealed. 2t $ithot $aiting for theotcome, Atty. Montalvo, Jr., filed %ivil %ase >o.667;!M on April 7, 1=:6 $hich $as a complaint for the cancellation of the transfer certificates of title inthe name of smaela )imagiba and the issanceof ne$ certificates of title in the name of the late2enedicta de los Reyes.

%learly, the respondent Montalvo, Jr. repetitively filed severalcomplaints in varios forms involving the same parties and the

same sb0ect matter, persistently raising isses long laid to restby final 0dgment.

This misbehavior in acie curia consisting of a stbborn refsalto accept this %ortLs prononcements is in fact even smmarilypnishable nder Rle :1, ction 1 of the Rles of %ort.8

Any la$yer $ho assmes the responsibility for a clientL casehas the dty to no$ the entire history of a case, specially if anylitigation has commenced. n the case at bar, even Atty.Montalvo does not deny the fact that the probate of the $ill o thelate 2enedicta de los Reyes has been an over!e5tended ancontentios litigation bet$een the heirs.

A la$yer shold never tae advantage of the seemingly end lesschannels left dangling by or legal system in order $angle the

attention of the cort. Atty. Montalvo may have thoght that liecold get a$ay $ith his indiscriminate filing o sits that $ereclearly intended to harass smaela )imagiba <hen cortdocets get clogged and the administration of 0stice is delayed,or 0dicial system may not be entirely blame less, yet thegreater falt lies in the la$yers $ho had tae their privilege solightly, and in sch mindless fashion.

The %ode of Professional Responsibility states that

Rle 1.(1 K A la$yer shall not engage in nla$fl,dishonest immoral or deceitfl condct.

Rle 1.(/ K A la$yer shall not for any corrptmotive or interest encorage any sit orproceeding or delay any manLs case.

'n the basis of the foregoing, $e find him gilty of malpracticeas charged. -e has violated his oath not to delay any ma formoney or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable

profession, and has proven himself n$orthy of the trst repose

7/21/2019 PALEN


in him by la$ as an officer of the %ort. <e have notcontenanced other less significant infractions among the ransof or la$yers. -e deserves the severest pnishment of)2ARM?>T.

<-?R?3'R? on the basis of the foregoing, and consisted $ith

the rgent need to maintain the high traditions an standards ofthe legal profession and to preserve ndiminished pblic faith inattorneys!at!la$, the %ort Resolved to )2AR the respondent Atty. Jose Montalvo, Jr. from the practice la$. -is name ishereby ordered stricen from the Roll of Attorneys.

%opies of this Resoltion shall be circlated to all corts of thecontry and entered in the personal record of respondent Atty.Jose Montalvo, Jr.

' 'R)?R?).

palen

Documents