FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 56627, August 17, 1981 ]

CEBU STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE
JUDGE JOSE R. RAMOLETE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU,
MULTIFARMS AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ASSISTANT
CLERK OF COURT NICOLAS F. JOMUAD, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CEBU
AND/OR HER LAWFUL DEPUTY SHERIFF FELIPE V. BELANDRES,
RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
TEEHANKEE, At!"g #.$.%
The Court sets aside the order of respondent judge dated March 16, 1981, denying the appeal
of herein petitioner in Civil Case No. R1!""# of that court, and instead ordering the issuance of
a $rit of e%ecution, on the alleged ground that at the ti&e la$yer 'rancisco M. Malilong, (r. filed
on )ehalf of petitioner *therein defendant+ the record on appeal, notice of appeal and appeal
)ond and perfected petitioner,s appeal *ad&ittedly five days )efore the lapse of the -#day
regle&entary period+, he .had no authority yet fro& the defendant to appear as its colla)orating
counsel,. said la$yer having filed his for&al notice of appearance as such counsel only nine
days after$ards. The petition for manam!" is therefore granted and the court is here)y
ordered to give due course to the appeal. The entry of appearance of an attorney under section
/1 of Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court is &erely to ena)le the officers concerned to effectively
serve processes on the attorney of record. The lac0 of such for&al notice or entry of appear
ance does not render pleadings filed )y a ne$ colla)orating counsel to )e of no legal effect.
1n 1cto)er 11, 19!8, herein private respondent Multifar&s 2gro3ndustrial 4evelop&ent
Corporation filed a co&plaint *as plaintiff+ for consignation against herein petitioner *as
defendant+ in the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ce)u, presided )y respondent judge.
2fter issues had )een joined, $herein only a 5uestion of la$ $as involved the proper
interpretation of Custo&s 2d&inistrative 1rder No. 8, series 19!", dated May /!, 19!- so that
respondent court si&ply re5uired the parties to su)&it affidavit and counteraffidavit together
$ith their docu&entary evidence in support thereof, judg&ent $as rendered in favor of herein
respondent, to $it6 .1. 4eclaring *a+ the lia)ility of the plaintiff to the defendant to )e in the su&
of 79,!8-.--8 *)+ defendant,s 3nvoice No. "91! dated (uly 1", 19!8 as C2NC9::948 *c+ the
a&ount of 7",!"-.-- as validly consignated $ith the office of the Cler0 of Court to )e added to
the advance pay&ent of 7;,###.## and applied as full pay&ent of plaintiff,s lia)ility to the
defendant under par. *c+ a)ove8 /. 1rdering the defendant to pay plaintiff da&ages )y $ay of
attorney,s fees in the su& of 71,###.##8 and dis&issing defendant,s counterclai& for lac0 of
&erit.
1n 4ece&)er 1#, 198#, $ell $ithin the regle&entary period to perfect the appeal, petitioner, thru
counsel Malilong, filed $ith the trial court a notice of appeal, stating its intention to elevate the
case to the <upre&e Court on 5uestions of la$. The petitioner thru sa&e counsel also filed on
the sa&e date the record on appeal and paid the appeal )ond, there)y seasona)ly perfecting
the appeal.
1n 4ece&)er 1-, 198#, respondent filed its opposition to the appeal alleging that the notice of
appeal as $ell as the record on appeal $ere not signed )y 2tty. =alentin >o?o)rado, the counsel
of record and that there $as no sho$ing that the appeal )ond had )een paid.
To sho$ that the appeal )ond had in fact )een paid ti&ely on 4ece&)er 1#, 198#, petitioner, on
4ece&)er 19, 198# filed its notice of filing cash appeal )ond, attaching thereto the confir&atory
receipt
@1A
dated 4ece&)er 1#, 198# as issued )y the Cler0 of Court of the Court of 'irst 3nstance
of Ce)u in lieu of 1fficial Receipt No. -6!!-!1 for 71/#.## issued )y the 7rovincial Treasurer,s
1ffice to $ho& the appeal )ond $as paid, as said official receipt had to )e retained )y the Cler0
of Court. 1n the sa&e day, la$yer 'rancisco Malilong, (r. filed a for&al notice of appearance as
counsel for the defendant in colla)oration $ith 2tty. =alentin 2. >o?o)rado, the first counsel of
record.
2fter a period of &ore than t$o &onths, or on 'e)ruary /6, 1981, respondent Multifar&s filed a
&otion for e%ecution alleging that judg&ent had already )eco&e final and e%ecutory on the
alleged ground that ,,the defendant $as not a)le to file a notice of appeal and record on appeal
$ithin the -#day regle&entary period to perfect the appeal.. 1n March -, 1981, herein petitioner
filed an 1pposition to the &otion for e%ecution contending, as a)ove stated, that it had ti&ely
perfected the appeal on 4ece&)er 1#, 198#, $ell $ithin the prescri)ed period.
1n March 16, 1981, respondent judge issued his challenged order denying the appeal and
ordering the issuance of a $rit of e%ecution on the ground that .$hile indeed the notice of appeal
and the record on appeal $ere filed on ti&e and the appeal )ond $as also paid on ti&e, the
sa&e $ere of no force and effect since the la$yer $ho signed the sa&e $as not the attorney of
record..
'ailing in his &otion for the reconsideration of said order, petitioner instituted this action
of manam!", praying that respondent judge )e ordered to i&&ediately reinstate the appeal,
approve the record on appeal and thence for$ard the records of the case to this Court for revie$
and for the pay&ent of costs )y private respondent. 2s urgently prayed for, a te&porary
restraining order against enforce&ent of the challenged order $as issued on 2pril 1", 1981 )y
this Court, and upon receipt of the re5uired co&&ent of respondents, the Court declared the
case su)&itted for decision.
The 5uestion for deter&ination is $hether the lac0 of a for&al $ritten notice of appearance )y
the colla)orating la$yer for herein petitioner, 2tty. Malilong, (r., $ould affect adversely the
validity of the appeal ti&ely perfected )y such counsel.
<ection / of Rule 1- provides6
.<9C. /. 7apers to )e filed and served. 9very order re5uired )y its ter&s to )e served, every
pleading su)se5uent to the co&plaint, every $ritten &otion other than one $hich &ay )e heard
e% parte, and every $ritten notice, appearance, de&and, offer of judg&ent or si&ilar papers
shall )e filed $ith the court, and served upon the parties affected there)y. 3f any of such parties
has appeared )y an attorney or attorneys, service upon hi& shall )e &ade upon his attorneys or
one of the&, unless service upon the party hi&self is ordered )y the court. Bhere one attorney
appears for several parties, he shall only )e entitled to one copy of any paper served upon hi&
)y the opposite side..
Bhile the conte%t of the a)ove5uoted provision of the Rules that the for&al appearance of an
attorney shall )e filed $ith the court and served upon the parties affected there)y clearly indicate
that the appearance of such an attorney shall )e in $riting, the underlying reason for such
re5uire&ent is that to ena)le the officers concerned to effectively serve processes on the
attorney of record.
@/A
2ccordingly, the fact that no for&al $ritten entry of appearance has )een
filed )y a ne$ colla)orating counsel or that the sa&e $as filed only after he had filed certain
pleadings could not seriously affect, &uch less nullify, the validity of the acts and the pleadings
filed )y the appearing attorney as $rongly held )y respondent judge. *2t &ost, the judge could
co&pel the attorney to file a for&al $ritten notice of appearance, in addition to his appearance
through the pleadings filed )y hi&.+
3t has thus )een categorically ruled in 1ng Ching vs. Ra&olete, etc., et al.
@-A
that .$hile it &ay )e
desira)le in the interest of an orderly conduct of judicial proceedings that a counsel for a party
should file $ith the court his for&al $ritten appearance in the case, )efore filing a pleading
therein, or &ention in said pleading that he is su)&itting the sa&e in colla)oration $ith the
counsel of record, the &ere circu&stance that such acts $ere not done does not $arrant the
conclusion that the pleading filed )y such counsel has no legal effect $hatsoever..
2s to 2tty. Malilong,s authority to appear as colla)orating counsel, the follo$ing provision of
section /1 of Rule 1-8 reads6
.<ection /1. 2uthority of attorney to appear. 2n attorney is presu&ed to )e properly authori?ed
to represent any cause in $hich he appears, and no $ritten po$er of attorney is re5uired to
authori?e hi& to appear in court for his client, )ut the presiding judge &ay, on &otion of either
party and on reasona)le grounds therefor )eing sho$n, re5uire any attorney $ho assu&es the
right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under $hich he appears, and to
disclose, $henever pertinent to any issue, the na&e of the person $ho e&ployed hi&, and &ay
thereupon &a0e such order as justice re5uires. % % %..
3t has )een held that as a logical corollary of the presu&ption that a la$yer is authori?ed to
appear for the party he represents, it is also presu&ed that the la$yer is authori?ed )y, and has
conferred $ith, his client regarding the case )efore he files an i&portant responsive pleading for
and on )ehalf of the latter.
3f respondent judge entertained any serious dou)t on the authority of 2tty. Malilong even after
the latter had for&ally entered his appearance in $riting as colla)orating counsel for the therein
petitioner, nine days after the perfection of the appeal, respondent judge should have re5uired
the said attorney to produce or prove his authority, in accordance $ith the a)ove5uoted Rule.
Respondent judge in ruling that the appeal seasona)ly perfected )y 2tty. Malilong on )ehalf of
petitioner $as .of no force and effect. not$ithstanding that petitioner indu)ita)ly proved at the
reconsideration hearing that 2tty. Malilong had )een duly e&ployed as petitioner,s legal counsel
since 'e)ruary 16, 198# at 7/,;##.## per &onth, and in dis&issing the appeal, &anifestly erred
and acted $ith grave a)use of discretion.
Respondent judge clearly ignored the oftrepeated principles laid do$n )y the Court that ,,*2+
rigid adherence to the technical rules of procedure disregards the funda&ental ai& of procedure
to serve as an aid to justice, not as a &eans for its frustration, and the o)jective of the Rules of
Court to afford litigants just, speedy and ine%pensive deter&ination of their controversy. Thus,
e%cusa)le i&perfections of for& and technicalities of procedure or lapses in the literal or rigid
o)servance of a procedural rule or nonjurisdictional deadline provided therein should )e
overloo0ed and )rushed aside as trivial and indecisive in the interest of fair play and justice
$hen pu)lic policy is not involved, no prejudice has )een caused the adverse party and the court
has not )een deprived of its authority or jurisdiction..
@"A
The Court does not loo0 $ith favor on such disregard of )asic rules and principles )y the lo$er
courts $hich needlessly co&pel the aggrieved parties to resort to the higher courts for redress
and ta0e up the ti&e $hich they could $ell devote to &ore &eritorious cases, and it $ill
ad&inistratively call judges to account therefor in appropriate cases $hich &anifest gross
ignorance of the la$ or inco&petence. Bhile the Court has held that it $ould not hold judges
ad&inistratively lia)le for honest errors of judg&ent, this case can hardly )e said to fall $ithin
such a category.
The Court has noted a co&&on error of trial courts and la$yers in cases of appeals fro& the
Courts of 'irst 3nstance to the <upre&e Court on pure 5uestions of la$, of the appellant still filing
a record on appeal $hich is in due course approved and elevated to the <upre&e Court, as in
this case. <uch &ode of appeal of filing a Record on 2ppeal together $ith the appeal )ond and
notice of appeal in the Court of 'irst 3nstance is good only for regular appeals fro& the Court of
'irst 3nstance to the Court of 2ppeals, and is governed )y Rule "1 of the Rules of
Court. 2ppeals directly fro& the Court of 'irst 3nstance to the <upre&e Court as in this case
have )een governed since <epte&)er 9, 1968 )y Repu)lic 2ct No. ;""# $hereunder the
appellant is re5uired to file a petition for revie$ on#$%&'(%a%' *as in appeals fro& the Court of
2ppeals to the <upre&e Court under Rule "; of the Rules of Court, specifically sections 1, / and
- thereof
@;A
+ $ith pay&ent of the doc0eting fees and service of copy of the petition on the Court of
'irst 3nstance $hich petition the <upre&e Court &ay forth$ith dis&iss as .$ithout &erit. or
.prosecuted &anifestly for delay. or raising 5uestions .too unsu)stantial to re5uire
consideration..
@6A
'ollo$ing this Court,s esta)lished practice $here the trial court has nevertheless for$arded to
this Court the appellant,s Record on 2ppeal *$hich is not necessary in direct appeals fro& the
Court of 'irst 3nstance to this Court on 5uestions of la$+ and so as to e%pedite the &atter, the
Court instead of $aiting for the Record on 2ppeal to )e elevated upon respondent judge,s giving
of due course to the appeal as herein re5uired, $ill no$ re5uire petitioner to file directly $ith this
Court the corresponding petition for revie$ on #$%&'(%a%' of respondent court,s judg&ent of
1cto)er /!, 198#, and pay the doc0et and legal research fund fees in the total a&ount of 7;-.##
$ithin fifteen *1;+ days fro& notice hereof, as hereina)ove indicated.
A##ORDING&', the order co&plained of is set aside and the respondent court is here)y order
ed to give due course to the appeal. 2s stated in the preceding paragraph, petitioner is granted
a period of fifteen *1;+ days fro& notice hereof $ithin $hich to file directly $ith this Court the
corresponding petition for revie$ on #$%&'(%a%' of respondent court,s judg&ent of 1cto)er /!,
198# and pay the doc0et and legal research fund fees. Bith costs against private
respondent. <1 1R49R94.
Ma)a"'a%, G!$%%$%(, D$ Ca"&%(, and M$*$n#'(-H$%%$%a, JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. &()58)*, $u+, 2-, 199* ]
FORTUNATA MERCADO, BASILIA CUEVAS MERCADO, SOTERA MERCADO AND
TRINIDAD MERCADO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ALBERTO +. UBAY, AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RI,AL, BRANCH ---II, LUCINA
SAMONTE AND TRINIDAD M. SAMONTE, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
.EDIA&DEA, $.%
This is a petition for #$%&'(%a%' and prohi)ition under Rule 6; of the Revised Rules of Court $ith a
prayer for the issuance of a $rit of preli&inary injunction. 7etitioners see0 to enjoin and restrain
respondent judge fro& further proceeding $ith Civil Case No. C/""/ in the Court of 'irst
3nstance of Ri?al *no$ Regional Trial Court+ on the ground of lac0 of jurisdiction to annul a final
and e%ecutory judg&ent rendered )y the Court of 'irst 3nstance ofCavite *no$ Regional Trial
Court+ in Civil Case No. TM//-.
The antecedent facts are as follo$s6
1n May 18, 1966, petitioners filed an action for partition $ith the Court of 'irst 3nstance
of Cavite, Cranch 3, doc0eted as Civil Case No. TM//-, against 2ntonio, 9ly and
respondents :ucina and Trinidad, all surna&ed<a&onte and $ho are )rothers and sisters.
1n (une /!, 1966, the defendants $ere served $ith a copy of the co&plaint and su&&ons thru
their codefendant 2ntonio <a&onte $ho ac0no$ledged receipt thereof.
1n (uly 11, 1966, all the defendants in the a)ovenu&)ered case, thru counsel,
2tty. 4anilo 7ine, filed their ans$er to the co&plaint. :ater, on (anuary ", 196!, the said
defendants, thru the sa&e counsel, filed their a&ended ans$er.
1n (uly -1, 19!#, the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Cavite *no$ RTC+ rendered judg&ent in favor of
the petitioners and against all the defendants in the civil case, including private
respondents. <ince no appeal $as &ade )y any of the defendants fro& the decision of the trial
court, the sa&e )eca&e final and e%ecutory and the court issued the corresponding $rit of
e%ecution.
Do$ever, )efore the $rit could )e carried out )y the provincial sheriff, all the defendants, thru
the sa&e counsel, 2tty. 4anilo 7ine, filed a petition for #$%&'(%a%' and manam!" $ith the Court
of 2ppeals see0ing to annul the $rit of e%ecution issued )y the trial court in Cavite in Case
No. TM//-. 1n (uly 9, 19!1, the Court of 2ppeals dis&issed the petition for lac0 of &erit.
1n May /!, 19!/, respondents :ucina <a&onte and Trinidad <a&onte )rought an action )efore
the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ri?al *no$ RTC+ doc0eted as Case No. C/""/, for the annul&ent
of the final judg&ent rendered )y the trial court in Cavite in Case No. TM//-, alleging the
follo$ing &atters6 that they did not authori?e anyone including 2tty. 4anilo 7ine to file an
ans$er in their )ehalf as defendants in Case No. TM//-, and that the filing of the petition
for #$%&'(%a%' $ith the Court of 2ppeals to annul the $rit of e%ecution in the sa&e case $as
$ithout their0no$ledge and participation.
7etitionersE &otion to dis&iss the action $as denied )y the C'3 of Ri?al. Thus, the
instant petition $as filed.
The issue to )e resolved in this case is $hether or not the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ri?al *no$
RTC+ co&&itted grave a)use of discretion or acted $ithout jurisdiction in denying the petitionersE
&otion to dis&iss the action for annul&ent of the final and e%ecutory judg&ent rendered )y the
C'3 of Cavite.
The applica)le la$ is Repu)lic 2ct No. /96, as a&ended, other$ise 0no$n as FThe (udiciary 2ct
of 19"8,G $hich $as the la$ in force $hen the disputed action for annul&ent $as filed on May
/!, 19!/ in the C'3 of Ri?al. This is )ased on the principle that the facts alleged in the co&plaint
and the la$ in force at the ti&e of co&&ence&ent of action deter&ine the jurisdiction of a court
*:u& Cing v. 3)aHe?, 9/ 7hil. !998 Rodrigue? v. 7ecson, 9/ 7hil. 1!/8<alao v. Crisosto&o,
No. :/91"6, 2ugust ;, 198;, 1-8 <CR2 1!8 Tolentino v. <ocial <ecurity Co&&ission, No. :
/88!#, <epte&)er 6, 198;, 1-8 <CR2 "/88 7hilippine 1verseas 4rilling, etc. v. Minister of
:a)or, I.R. No. ;;!#-, Nove&)er /!, 1986, 1"6 <CR2 !9+.
<ection ""*a+ of the Revised (udiciary 2ct of 19"8 then vested original jurisdiction in the Courts
of 'irst 3nstance over all civil actions in $hich the su)ject of the litigation is not capa)le of
pecuniary esti&ation and an action for the annul&ent of a judg&ent and an order of a court of
justice )elongs to this category *=da. de Jrsua v. 7elayo, 1#! 7hil. 6//+. 2 court of first
instance or a )ranch thereof has the authority and the jurisdiction as provided for )y la$ to annul
a final and e%ecutory judg&ent rendered )y another court of first instance or )y another
)ranch of the sa&e court. This $as the ruling laid do$n in the cases of 4ulap v. Court of
2ppeals, No. :/8-#6, 4ece&)er 18, 19!1, "/ <CR2 ;-!8 Iianan v. 3&perial, No. :
-!96-, 'e)ruary /8, 19!", ;; <CR2 !;; and 'rancisco v. 25uino, Nos. :--/-;-6, (uly /9,
19!6, !/ <CR2 1"9 $hich overturned the contrary rulings in Mas v. 4u&araog, No. :
16/;/, <epte&)er /9, 196", 1/ <CR2 -"8 (.M. Tuason K Co. v. Torres, et al., No. :
/"!1!, 4ece&)er ", 196!, /1 <CR2 11698 and <terling 3nvest&ent Corporation, et al. v. Rui?,
etc., et al., No. :-#69", 1cto)er -1, 1969, -# <CR2 -18+. Thus, in an action to annul a final
judg&ent or order, the choice of $hich court the action should )e filed is not left to the parties8 )y
legal &andate the action should )e filed $ith the Court of 'irst 3nstance. The 5uestion is in $hat
place *$ith $hat particular court of first instance+ the action should )e co&&enced and tried
*4ulap, supra+. The issue therefore to )e resolved in the instant case is not one of jurisdiction
)ut of venue$hether it $as properly laid in the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ri?al for the
annul&ent of the judg&ent rendered )y the C'3 of Cavite.
<ection /, Rule " of the Rules of Court fi%es the venue in Courts of 'irst 3nstance, as follo$s6
F<9C. /. =enue in Courts of 'irst 3nstance *a+ Real actions. 2ctions affecting title to, or for
recovery of possession, or for partition or conde&nation of, or foreclosure of &ortgage on, real
property, shall )e co&&enced and tried in the province $here the property or any part thereof
lies.
F*)+ 7ersonal actions. 2ll other actions &ay )e co&&enced and tried $here the defendant or
any of the defendants resides or &ay )e found, or $here the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs
resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
F% % %.G
The co&plaint filed )y respondents $ith the C'3 of Ri?al for the annul&ent of judg&ent states
that they reside atCaloocan City and that petitioners, as defendants, reside at Cavite *p.
"8, Rollo+. <ince the action for annul&ent of judg&ent is a personal one, the venue of the action
in this case should )e either C'3 of Caloocan or C'3 ofCavite at the election of the
plaintiff. Clearly, venue $as i&properly laid in the C'3 of Ri?al and respondent judge should
have dis&issed the action for annul&ent of judg&ent on the ground of i&proper venue.
3t is significant to state at this point that although the prevailing rule )efore C.7. 1/9 $as that
courts of first instance and their )ranches have jurisdiction to annul each otherEs final judg&ents
and orders as ruled in 4ulap and su)se5uent cases, funda&ental principles still dictate that the
)etter policy, as a &atter of co&ity or courteous interaction )et$een courts of first instance and
the )ranches thereof, is for the annul&ent cases to )e tried )y the sa&e court or )ranch $hich
heard the &ain action sought to )e annulled *Iianan v. 3&perial, supra+. Moreover, despite the
ree%a&ination )y this Court of the old ruling in Mas v. 4u&araog, supra, recent decisions still
uphold its rationale that pursuant to judicial sta)ility, the doctrine of noninterference should )e
regarded as highly i&portant in the ad&inistration of justice $here)y the judg&ent of a court
of co&petent jurisdiction &ay not )e opened, &odified or vacated )y any court of concurrent
jurisdiction *Ngo Cun Tiong v. <ayo, No. :";8/;, (une -#, 1988, 16- <CR2 /-!8 Repu)lic v.
Reyes, Nos. :-#/6-6;, 1cto)er -#, 198!8 7arco v. Court of 2ppeals, No. :--1;/, (anuary
-#, 198/, 111 <CR2+.
Bhile the foregoing discussion &ay no longer find any application at this ti&e $ith
the effectivity of Catas7a&)ansa, Clg. 1/9, enacted on 2ugust 1#, 1981, $hich transferred the
jurisdiction over actions for annul&ent of judg&ent to the Court of 2ppeals, it $as dee&ed
necessary if only to )ring light and settle the e%isting confusion and chaos a&ong judges of the
different courts of first instance and their )ranches concerning the application of the old la$s on
jurisdiction and venue over this 0ind of action. 7ro)a)ly, this confusion $as the underlying
reason of the :egislature )ehind the transfer of jurisdiction over annul&ent of judg&ents fro&
the trial courts to the Court of 2ppeals under C.7. 1/9.
9ven if Be $ere to disregard, for the sa0e of argu&ent, the issue on jurisdiction of and venue in
the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ri?al in the annul&ent suit, Be found, upon perusal of the records,
that no sufficient grounds e%ist to justify the annul&ent of the final judg&ent of
the Cavite court. Certain re5uisites &ust )e esta)lished )efore a judg&ent can )e the su)ject of
an action for annul&ent. 2 judg&ent can )e annulled only on t$o grounds6 *a+ the judg&ent is
void for $ant of jurisdiction or for lac0 of due process of la$, or *)+ it has )een o)tained )y fraud
*<antiago v. Ceni?a, No. :1!-//, (une -#, 196/, ; <CR2 "9"+.
None of the afore&entioned grounds $as sho$n to e%ist to support the annul&ent action. The
contention of private respondents that they $ere not served $ith su&&ons in Case No. TM//-
in the Cavite court is untena)le. 3n their &e&orandu& filed $ith this Court, they ad&it that they
$ere served $ith su&&ons thru their codefendant 2ntonio <a&onte $ho ac0no$ledged receipt
thereof. The receipt of su&&ons is sho$n )y the return su)&itted )y the sheriff to the Court of
'irst 3nstance of Cavite. 2part fro& the presu&ption that the sheriff had regularly perfor&ed his
functions, records a&ply sho$ that all the defendants, including private respondents had filed
their ans$er in Case No.TM//- thru counsel, 2tty. 4anilo 7ine. 2nd $hen final judg&ent had
)een rendered )y the C'3 of Cavite against respondents and a $rit of e%ecution issued )y the
trial court, the private respondents, thru the sa&e counsel, 2tty. 7ine even instituted a petition
for #$%&'(%a%' and manam!" to enjoin the e%ecution of the judg&ent of
the Cavite court. Respondents no$ allege that they have not authori?ed 2tty. 4anilo7ine to
appear in their )ehalf as defendants in Case No. TM//- or to file the petition for #$%&'(%a%' $ith
the appellate court. <uch allegation is devoid of &erit.
2n attorney is presu&ed to )e properly authori?ed to represent any cause in $hich he appears,
and no $ritten po$er of attorney is re5uired to authori?e hi& to appear in court for his client
*<ec. /1, Rule 1-8, Rules of Court+. The fact that private respondents had not personally
appeared in the hearings of Case TM//- in the trial court is i&&aterial. The filing of the ans$er
)y and appearance of 2tty. 4anilo 7ine in their )ehalf are sufficient to give private respondents
standing in court. 3t is hard to )elieve that a counsel $ho has no personal interest in the case
$ould fight for and defend a case $ith persistence and vigor if he had not )een authori?ed or
e&ployed )y the party concerned. 3t is o)vious that since the appellate court had decided
adversely against private respondents in their petition for #$%&'(%a%', the latter filed the annul&ent
suit for a second chance at preventing petitioners fro& enforcing the decision rendered
)y the Cavite court in favor of the latter.
3t is an i&portant funda&ental principle in 1ur judicial syste& that every litigation &ust co&e to
an end. 2ccess to the courts is guaranteed. Cut there &ust )e a li&it thereto. 1nce a litigantEs
rights have )een adjudicated in a valid final judg&ent of a co&petent court, he should not )e
granted an un)ridled license to co&e )ac0 for another try. The prevailing party should not )e
harassed )y su)se5uent suits. 'or, if endless litigations $ere to )e encouraged, unscrupulous
litigants $ill &ultiply in nu&)er to the detri&ent of the ad&inistration of justice *Ngo
Cun Tiong v. <ayo, supra8 7ac5uing v. Court of 2ppeals, I.R. ;/"98, (uly 19, 198/, 11; <CR2
11!+.
A##ORDING&', the petition is IR2NT94 and the respondent judge of the Court of 'irst
3nstance of Ri?al *no$ Regional Trial Court+ is 1R49R94 to dis&iss Civil Case No. C
/""/. The te&porary restraining order issued )y this Court is here)y &ade per&anent.
<1 1R49R94.
Na%.a"a, /C0a'%man1, C%!2, Gan#a3#(, and G%'4(-A5!'n(, JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 1*6*9-, D//01/2 28, 1992 ]
PSCFC FINANCIAL CORPORATION /NEW PSCFC BUSINESS CORPORATION1,
PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HERMINIO I. BENITO, PRESIDING JUDGE,
RTC, BR. 678, MAKATI, METRO MANILA, NOTARY PUBLIC ENRI+UE I. +UIASON, AND
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS 9 MORTGAGE BANK, RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
3E&&OSI&&O, $.%
2t issue in this petition for revie$ is $hether a re5uest for ad&ission directed to an adverse party
under <ec. 1, Rule /6, of the Rules of Court &ay )e ans$ered only )y his counsel.
1n 1! March 1988, petitioner 7<C 'inancial Corporation *7<C'C+ filed a co&plaint against
private respondent Canco 'ilipino <avings and Mortgage Can0 *Canco 'ilipino+ for annul&ent of
foreclosure proceedings and da&ages $ith the Regional Trial Court of Ma0ati, Metro Manila,
doc0eted as Civil Case No. 88-68.
7etitioner 7<C'C alleges that as land developer it availed itself of the Do&e 'inancing 7lan of
Canco 'ilipino and )orro$ed fro& the latter the a&ount of 76,6-#,69#.## as .developer loan..
2s security, petitioner constituted a &ortgage over several lots in 7asay City $hich properties
$ere not yet sold at that ti&e to third parties. 3t $as agreed that under the Do&e 'inancing 7lan,
the .developer loan. $ould &ature only after the lots shall have )een su)divided and i&proved
and then sold to third persons $ho $ould then )e su)stituted as &ortgagors to the e%tent of the
loan value of the lots and houses )ought )y the&. Do$ever, on /; <epte&)er 198!, $ithout the
loan having &atured as none of the lots have )een convey to )uyers, such that the latter could
no$ ta0e the place of petitioner as &ortgagors, the &ortgage $as e%trajudicially foreclosed and
a certificate of sale $as e%ecuted in favor of private respondent Canco 'ilipino.
3n their ans$er of 1# (une 1988, private respondents ad&itted the loan of 76,6-#,69#.## for
$hich petitioner had e%ecuted a pro&issory note secured )y a real estate &ortgage on the
properties descri)ed in the co&plaint. Do$ever, they denied that petitioner had availed itself of
Canco 'ilipino,s Do&e 'inancing 7lan, averring instead that under the pro&issory note and the
contract of &ortgage, the su)ject loan $ould fall due .1 year fro& date. or on ; (anuary 1986
and that upon default of petitioner, Canco 'ilipino could i&&ediately foreclose the &ortgage
under 2ct No. -1-; as in fact it did, upon co&pliance $ith the legal re5uire&ents $ith respect to
e%trajudicial foreclosures.
1n /1 (une 1988, petitioner served upon Canco 'ilipino a $ritten re5uest for ad&ission of the
truth of certain &atters set forth as follo$s6
.1. The plaintiff *7<C'C+ % % % $as % % % granted )y you under your C' Do&e 'inancing 7lan,
on the security of &ortgages constituted on the lands ac5uired, under the ter&s of $hich
the developer loans, despite the contents of the covering pro&issory notes and security
instru&ents, $ould &ature only after the develop&ent of the ac5uired lands into residential
su)division and the resale of the % % % lots % % % to interested third parties $ho $ould then )e
su)stituted as &ortgagors % % % %
./. % % % in 198", availing itself of your said Do&e 'inancing 7lan, the plaintiff o)tained fro&
you a loan % % % of 76,6-#,69#.## for $hich it signed in your favor a pro&issory note on the
security of a &ortgage constituted on % % % lots, $hich $ere not then yet sold to any third
person % % % %
.-. % % % on <epte&)er LL, 198!, $ithout the said loan having yet &atured for the reason that
none of the % % % lots had yet )een the su)ject of sale to third persons such that su)stitution of
the latter as &ortgagors in your favor could not yet )e had, a certificate of sale $as e%ecuted )y
the Notary 7u)lic over the % % % lands in your favor..
@1A
1n /! (une 1988, petitioner received Canco 'ilipino,s ans$er to its re5uest for ad&ission signed
)y its counsel, 2tty. 7hilip <igfrid 2. 'ortun. Counsel ad&itted, 'n&$% a*'a, petitioner,s &ortgage
loan as $ell as the fact that Canco 'ilipino $as engaged in land develop&ent loans. Do$ever,
respondent denied that petitioner availed itself of the Do&e 'inancing 7lan including the
agree&ent that the &aturity of the de)t $ould depend on the resale of the &ortgaged
su)division lots.
1n 8 2ugust 1988, petitioner &ade a second re5uest for ad&ission on respondent Canco
'ilipino i&pliedly o)jecting to the first reply having )een &ade )y its la$yer, 2tty. 'ortun, $ho
$as not even an attorney yet $hen Canco 'ilipino inaugurated its financing plan in 'e)ruary
1968 and therefore did not have personal 0no$ledge of the financing sche&e. The second
re5uest called on Canco 'ilipino to ad&it that it did not send a for&al notice of its intention to
foreclose the &ortgage and that there $as no pu)lication of the notice of foreclosure in a
ne$spaper of general circulation.
Cy $ay of response &ade /6 2ugust and " Nove&)er 1988, respondent Canco 'ilipino o)jected
to the &atters re5uested on the ground of irrelevancy and LLLLLied all the rest. 3n its &otion of !
Nove&)er 1988 petitioner as0ed the trial court for a ruling that the &atters sought to )e ad&itted
in its second )id for ad&ission should )e considered as i&pliedly ad&itted $hen the ans$er $as
&ade )y a la$yer $ho $as not 5ualified to do so as he had no direct and personal 0no$ledge of
the &atters sought to )e ad&itted. 3n insisting that only a client could &a0e a )inding ad&ission
in discovery proceedings, petitioner cites K(0 .. IAC.
@/A
3t even $ent to the e%tent of 5uoting in its
petition, found on pages 1;16, certain paragraphs supposedly ta0en therefro& $hich are not
actually found therein, e%cept the last paragraph $hich states6 .% % % % 2ll the parties are
re5uired to lay their cards on the ta)le so that justice can )e rendered on the &erits of the case..
3n any case, the lo$er court $as not persuaded, so that petitioner $ent to the Court of 2ppeals
&aintaining that there $as a tacit ad&ission of the &atters included in its second re5uest for
ad&ission as the ans$er thereto $as signed only )y 2tty. 'ortun $ho had no personality to do
so.
The appellate court sustained the trial court8 hence, this instant recourse.
7etitioner su)&its that the ans$er to the re5uest for ad&ission under Rule /6 should )e &ade
)y the party hi&self and no)ody else, not even his la$yer. Conse5uently, failure of respondent
Canco 'ilipino, upon $ho& the call for ad&ission $as served, to render the re5uired s$orn
state&ent $ould constitute an 'm:*'$ am'""'(n of the facts sought to )e ad&itted. Thus, it
&ust )e the party itself $ho &ust respond to the re5uest for ad&ission and that a &ere reply
&ade and verified )y its counsel alone is insufficient and contrary to the Rules and the intent
)ehind recourse to &odes of discovery.
The argu&ent is untena)le. <ection /1 of Rule 1-8 states
.<9C. /1. A!&0(%'&3 (; a&&(%n$3 &( a::$a%. 2n attorney is presu&ed to )e properly authori?ed to
represent any cause in $hich he appears, and no $ritten po$er of attorney is re5uired to
authori?e hi& to appear in court for his client % % % %G
@-A
7etitioner has not sho$n that the case at )ar falls under any of the recogni?ed e%ceptions as
found in 2rt. 18!8 of the Civil Code $hich enu&erates the instances $hen special po$ers of
attorney are necessary, or in Rule /# of the Rules of Court on pretrial $here the parties and
their attorneys are )oth directed to appear )efore the court for a conference8 so that for counsel
to appear at the pretrial in )ehalf of his client, he &ust clothe the for&er $ith an ade5uate
authority in the for& of a special po$er of attorney or corporate resolution.
<ection /- of Rule 1-8 provides that .*a+ttorneys have authority to )ind their clients in any case
)y any agree&ent in relation thereto &ade in $riting, and in ta0ing appeals, and in all &atters of
ordinary judicial procedure % % % %.
Thus, $hen Rule /6 states that a party shall respond to the re5uest for ad&ission, it should not
)e restrictively construed to &ean that a party &ay LLLLL engage the services of counsel to
&a0e the response in his )ehalf. 3ndeed, the theory of petitioner &ust not )e ta0en seriously8
other$ise, it $ill negate the principles on agency in the Civil Code,
@"A
as $ell as <ec. /-, Rule
1-8, of the Rules of Court.
@;A
Nonetheless, even assu&ing arguendo that 2tty. 7hilip <igfrid 'ortun overstepped his authority,
it is only his client, respondent Canco 'ilipino, $hich has the prerogative to i&pugn his acts and
not petitioner, the adverse party. 3nterestingly, Canco 'ilipino has not o)jected to the response
&ade )y its counsel in its )ehalf.
A##ORDING&', the Court Resolves to6 *a+ DENY the instant petition for utter lac0 of &erit8 and,
*)+ RE+UIREcounsel for petitioner, ATTY. LUTGARDA C. BA+UIRAN-PERALTA, of
the BALGOS 9 PERE, LAW OFFICE, ;th 'loor, Corinthian 7la?a, 7aseo de Ro%as, Ma0ati,
Metro Manila, to SHOW CAUSE $ithin ten *1#+ days fro& notice hereof $hy she should not )e
ad&inistratively dealt $ith for &is5uoting the te%t of the decision in K(0 .. IAC, "!:%a, to support
her position and attain a favora)le judg&ent for her client.
<1 1R49R94.
C%!2, /C0a'%man1, Pa'**a, and G%'4(-A5!'n(, JJ., concur.
SE#OND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 1286-6, .425 1-, 2**) ]
CRISELDA F. JOSE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANILO OMEGA,
RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
A6STRIA(.ARTINE7, $.%
Cefore us is a petition erroneously entitled as a F7etition for Revie$ on CertiorariG $hich should
)e a petition for certiorari under Rule 6; of the Rules of Court.
The factual )ac0ground of the case is as follo$s6
1n Nove&)er 1", 199", the Regional Trial Court of Ce)u City *Cranch //+ rendered a decision
in Civil Case No. C911;!#9, entitled F4anilo 1&ega, 7laintiff, versus, Criselda '. (ose,
4efendant.G, the dispositive portion of $hich reads as follo$s6
FBD9R9'1R9, )ased on the evidence thus presented, this Court finds for the plaintiff.
(udg&ent is here)y rendered declaring the March -, 1981 &arriage )et$een plaintiff 4anilo
1&ega and Criselda '. (ose, null and void 41 !"!t!o. Custody over the three children (oselyn,
4anilo, (r. and (ordan, all surna&ed 1&ega shall )e entrusted to plaintiff 4anilo 1&ega.
F'urnish the :ocal Civil Registrar of Manila $ith a copy of this judg&ent. No costs.
F<1 1R49R94.G
@1A
The ground for declaring the &arriage null and void is psychological incapacity on the part of
defendant Criselda under 2rticle -6 of the 'a&ily Code of the 7hilippines. 4uring the trial, the
counsel on record of defendant Criselda $as 2tty. Margarito 4. Map of the Ce)u City 4istrict
1ffice of the 7u)lic 2ttorneyEs 1ffice *721+. Do$ever, defendant Criselda filed a Notice of
2ppeal, dated 4ece&)er !, 199", on her o$n, $ithout the assistance of 2tty. Map.
@/A
The (udicial Records 4ivision *(R4+ of the Court of 2ppeals sent a notice to pay doc0et fee,
dated 2ugust -, 199; to 2tty. Map $hich $as received )y hi&.
@-A
1n 1cto)er /", 199;, the
appellate court, through the 'or&er <i%teenth 4ivision,
@"A
pro&ulgated a Resolution $hich reads
as follo$s6
F'or failure of the defendantappellant to pay the doc0eting fee in this case $ithin the
regle&entary period $hich e%pired on 2ugust /;, 199;, despite receipt )y his counsel on 2ugust
1#, 199; of this CourtEs notice dated 2ugust -, 199;, this appeal is here)y 43<M3<<94 pursuant
to <ection 1*d+, Rule ;# of the Rules of Court.
<1 1R49R94.G
@;A
1n May 9, 1996, the 4ivision Cler0 of Court issued the 9ntry of (udg&ent certifying that the
a)ove5uoted Resolution had )eco&e final and e%ecutory as of 4ece&)er 1, 199;.
@6A
3t is
indicated at the )otto& of said 9ntry of (udg&ent that 2tty. Map and the <pecial and 2ppealed
Cases 4ivision of the 721 $ere sent copies of the 9ntry of (udg&ent.
1n May 1-, 1996, the appellate court received a letter of even date fro& defendantappellant
Criselda addressed to the Cler0 of Court of the Court of 2ppeals in5uiring a)out the status of her
appeal and clai&ing that she has not received any notice fro& the appellate court.
@!A
The appellate court noted the e%planation of the cler0 in the Civil Cases <ection of the (udicial
Records 4ivision *(R4+ of said court that 2tty. Map $as sent the notice to pay doc0et fee
)ecause Criselda had sent a copy of her Notice of 2ppeal to 2tty. Map and that per the records
of the case, 2tty. Map $as earlier sent a copy of the for&al offer of e%hi)its and duly received in
his )ehalf, he filed the co&&ents and o)jections to the e%hi)its for the plaintiff8 he appeared at
the hearings conducted )y the trial court.
@8A
1n 1cto)er /8, 1996, Criselda through counsel filed a Motion for :eave of Court to 'ile 1&ni)us
MotionsNMotion to Reinstate 2ppeal.
@9A
1n 4ece&)er 16, 1996, the Court of 2ppeals issued the
follo$ing Resolution6
FConsidering that the Resolution dis&issing this appeal has )eco&e final on 4ece&)er 1, 199;
and an 9ntry of (udg&ent has in fact )een &ade on May 9, 1996, the Motion for :eave of Court
to 'ile 1&ni)us MotionsNMotion to Reinstate 2ppeal and the 1&ni)us MotionsNMotion to
Reinstate 2ppeal are here)y denied.
<1 1R49R94.G
@1#A
CriseldaEs &otion for reconsideration $as denied )y the Court of 2ppeals.
Dence, the present petition on the follo$ing ground6
FThe pu)lic respondent Donora)le Court of 2ppeals co&&itted grave error in denying the
petitionerEs Motion for :eave of Court to file 1&ni)us MotionsNMotion to Reinstate 2ppeal and
the 1&ni)us MotionsNMotion to Reinstate 2ppeal $hich if not corrected, $ould deprive petitioner
of her constitutional right to due process and injustice $ould )e done to her.G
@11A
on $hich )asis, petitioner Criselda raises the follo$ing issues6
F3.
FBD9TD9R 1R N1T TD9 79T3T31N9R BD1 27792:94 D9R C2<9 CM D9R<9:'
B3TD1JT C1JN<9: B2< =2:34:M <9R=94 B3TD N1T3C9 T1 72M TD9 41CO9T3NI '99
2N4 N1T3C9 1' TD9 R9<1:JT31N 43<M3<<3NI D9R 27792: '1R '23:JR9 T1 72M TD9
41CO9T3NI '99.
F33.
FBD9TD9R 1R N1T TD9 D1N1R2C:9 C1JRT 1' 27792:< 9RR94 3N 49NM3NI TD9
79T3T31N9RE< M1T31N '1R :92=9 1' C1JRT T1 '3:9 1MN3CJ< M1T31N<NM1T31N T1
R93N<T2T9 27792: 2N4 TD9 1MN3CJ< M1T31N<NM1T31N T1 R93N<T2T9 27792:.G
@1/A
2fter private respondent filed his Co&&ent, parties filed their respective Me&oranda in
co&pliance $ith the Resolution of the Court dated 4ece&)er 1", 1998.
Be find the petition devoid of &erit.
Cased on the records, it appears that the 721, through 2tty. =ictor C. :a)orte and 2tty. Map,
represented petitioner during the trial of the case. 2lthough petitioner herself personally filed the
Notice of 2ppeal, the fact re&ains that 2tty. Map or the 721 has not filed any for&al notice of
$ithdra$al of appearance in the trial court. Therefore, insofar as the appellate court is
concerned, 2tty. Map is the counsel of record. 2s such, the appellate court did not co&&it any
grave a)use of discretion in denying petitionerEs &otion for leave of court to file o&ni)us &otions
or &otion to reinstate appeal.
<ection //, Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court, provides6
F<ection //. A&&(%n$3 <0( a::$a%" 'n *(<$% #(!%& :%$"!m$ &( %$:%$"$n& #*'$n& (n a::$a*. P 2n
attorney $ho appears $ :a%&$ in a case )efore a lo$er court shall )e presu&ed to continue
representing his client on appeal, unless he files a for&al petition $ithdra$ing his appearance in
the appellate court.G
7ay&ent of the doc0et and other legal fees $ithin the prescri)ed period is )oth &andatory and
jurisdictional, and failure of the appellant to confor& $ith the rules on appeal renders the
judg&ent final and e%ecutory.
@1-A
3ndeed, the Court, in so&e instances, had allo$ed li)eral construction of the Rules of Court $ith
respect to the rules on the &anner and periods for perfecting appeals on e5uita)le
consideration.
@1"A
3n B!$na;*(% .". C(!%& (; A::$a*", the Court has enunciated the follo$ing6
FThe esta)lished rule is that the pay&ent in full of the doc0et fees $ithin the prescri)ed period is
&andatory. Nevertheless, this rule &ust )e 5ualified, to $it6 'irst, the failure to pay appellate
court doc0et fee $ithin the regle&entary period allo$s only discretionary dis&issal, not
auto&atic dis&issal, of the appeal8 <econd, such po$er should )e used in the e%ercise of the
CourtsE sound discretion Qin accordance $ith the tenets of justice and fair Fplay and $ith great
deal of circu&spection considering all attendant circu&stances.
F2d&ittedly, this Court has allo$ed the filing of an appeal in so&e cases $here a stringent
application of the rules $ould have denied it, only $hen to do so $ould serve the de&ands of
justice and in the e%ercise of the CourtEs e5uity jurisdiction. This is )ased on the rule of li)erality
in the interpretation of the Rules to achieve su)stantial justice. 3t &ay )e recalled that the
general rule is that the Rules of Court are rules of procedure and $henever called for they
should )e so construed as to give effect rather than defeat their essence.
F<ection 6, Rule 1 of the 199! Rules of Civil 7rocedure provides6
Q<9C. 6. C(n"&%!#&'(n P These Rules shall )e li)erally construed in order to pro&ote their
o)jective of securing a just, speedy and ine%pensive disposition of every action and proceeding.E
FRules of procedures are intended to pro&ote, not to defeat, su)stantial justice and, therefore,
they should not )e applied in a very rigid and technical sense. The e%ception is that, $hile the
Rules are li)erally construed, the provisions $ith respect to the rules on the &anner and periods
for perfecting appeals are strictly applied. 2s an e%ception to the e%ception, these rules have
so&eti&es )een rela%ed on e5uita)le considerations. 2lso, in so&e cases the <upre&e Court
has given due course to an appeal perfected out of ti&e $here a stringent application of the
rules $ould have denied it, )ut only $hen to do so $ould serve the de&ands of su)stantial
justice, and in the e%ercise of e5uity jurisdiction of the <upre&e Court.
FThe underlying consideration in this petition is that the act of dis&issing the notice of appeal, if
done in e%cess of the trial courtEs jurisdiction, a&ounts to an undue denial of the petitionerEs right
to appeal. The i&portance and real purpose of the re&edy of appeal has )een e&phasi?ed
in Ca"&%( .. C(!%& (; A::$a*" $here this Court ruled that an appeal is an essential part of our
judicial syste& and trial courts are advised to proceed $ith caution so as not to deprive a party
of the right to appeal and instructed that every partylitigant should )e afforded the a&plest
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed fro& the constraints of
technicalities.G
@1;A
Do$ever, the Court finds no cogent reason to )e li)eral in the present case for the follo$ing
reasons6
7etitionerEs counsel, 2tty. Margarito Map of the 721 $as properly sent )y the appellate court a
notice to pay the doc0et fees. 2tty. Map or the 721 did not file any for&al $ithdra$al of
appearance and therefore, for all intents and purposes, the appellate court correctly sent the
notice to 2tty. Map. 3t is settled that clients are )ound )y the &ista0es, negligence and o&ission
of their counsel.
@16A
Moreover, under <ection /1, Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court, an attorney is presu&ed to )e
properly authori?ed to represent any cause in $hich he appears. Jnder <ection // of the sa&e
Rule, an attorney $ho appears $ :a%&$in a case )efore a lo$er court shall )e presu&ed to
continue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a for&al petition $ithdra$ing his
appearance in the appellate court.
7etitioner failed to pursue her appeal for al&ost t$o years. <he herself filed the notice of appeal
on 4ece&)er ", 199" )ut thought of in5uiring fro& the Court of 2ppeals a)out her appeal only
on May 1-, 1996 *or after the lapse of one year and five &onths+ as to the status of her appeal.
7etitioner failed to sho$ that her appeal is e%tre&ely &eritorious that to deprive her of an appeal
$ould unduly affect her su)stantial rights.
3n other $ords, petitioner failed to sho$ any co&pelling reason to $arrant the issuance of the
$rit of certiorari. The Court of 2ppeals co&&itted no grave a)use of discretion in denying
petitionerEs Motion for :eave of Court to 'ile 1&ni)us MotionsNMotion to Reinstate 2ppeal. 3ts
Resolution dated 1cto)er /", 199; dis&issing petitionerEs appeal had )eco&e final and
e%ecutory as of 4ece&)er 1, 199;.
BD9R9'1R9, the petition is 49N394 for lac0 of &erit. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
B$**("'**(, /C0a'%man1, M$n(2a, +!'"!m='n>, and Ca**$?(, S%., JJ., concur.
EN 3AN#
[ G.R. No. 1765)*, $u"/ 16, 2**9 ]
SPOUSES CONSTANTE AGBULOS AND ,ENAIDA PADILLA AGBULOS, PETITIONERS, VS.
NICASIO GUTIERRE,, JOSEFA GUTIERRE, AND ELENA G. GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
#HI#O(NA7ARIO, $.%
This petition for revie$ on #$%&'(%a%' see0s the revie$ of the 4ecision
@1A
of the Court of 2ppeals
*C2+ dated 'e)ruary 6, /##! in C2I.R. C= No. 8-99" $hich set aside the dis&issal of a
co&plaint for declaration of nullity of contract, cancellation of title, reconveyance and da&ages.
The case ste&s fro& the follo$ing antecedents6
1n 1cto)er 16, 199!, respondents, 4r. Nicasio I. Iutierre?, (osefa Iutierre? de Mendo?a and
9lena I. Iarcia, through their counsel, 2tty. 2driano C. Mag)itang, filed $ith the Regional Trial
Court *RTC+ of Iapan, Nueva 9cija, a co&plaint against petitioners, spouses Constante
2g)ulos and >enaida 7adilla 2g)ulos, for declaration of nullity of contract, cancellation of title,
reconveyance and da&ages. The co&plaint alleged that respondents inherited fro& their father,
Ma%i&o Iutierre?, an eighthectare parcel of land located in Callos, 7enaranda, Nueva 9cija,
covered )y Transfer Certificate of Title *TCT+ No. NT1/-!9# in the na&e of Ma%i&o Iutierre?.
Through fraud and deceit, petitioners succeeded in &a0ing it appear that Ma%i&o Iutierre?
e%ecuted a 4eed of <ale on (uly /1, 19!8 $hen, in truth, he died on 2pril /;, 19!!. 2s a result,
TCT No. NT1/-!9# $as cancelled and a ne$ one, TCT No. NT18866", $as issued in the
na&e of petitioners. Cased on the notation at the )ac0 of the certificate of title, portions of the
property $ere )rought under the Co&prehensive 2grarian Refor& 7rogra& *C2R7+ and
a$arded to :orna 7adilla, 9lenita Nuega and <u?ette Nuega $ho $ere issued Certificates of
:and 1$nership 2$ard *C:12s+.
3n their defense, petitioners averred that respondents $ere not the real parties in interest, that
the 4eed of <ale $as regularly e%ecuted )efore a notary pu)lic, that they $ere possessors in
good faith, and that the action had prescri)ed.
1n the day set for the presentation of the respondents, *plaintiffs,+ evidence, petitioners filed a
Motion to 4is&iss, assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the su)ject &atter of the case.
7etitioners contended that the 4epart&ent of 2grarian Refor& 2djudication Coard *42R2C+, not
the RTC, had jurisdiction since the su)ject land $as covered )y the C2R7, and C:12s had
)een a$arded to tenants. Respondents opposed the &otion, arguing that the &otion had )een
filed )eyond the period for filing an 2ns$er, that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case )ased on
the allegations in the co&plaint, and that the 42R2C had no jurisdiction since the parties had no
tenancy relationship.
3n an 1rder
@/A
dated 1cto)er /", /##/, the RTC granted the petitioners, &otion and dis&issed
the co&plaint for lac0 of jurisdiction. The RTC held that the 42R2C had jurisdiction, since the
su)ject property $as under the C2R7, so&e portions of it $ere covered )y registered C:12s,
and there $as :%'ma ;a#'$ sho$ing of tenancy.
@-A
Respondents filed a &otion for reconsideration. 1n Nove&)er 1-, /##-, the RTC denied the
&otion.
@"A
2tty. Mag)itang filed a Notice of 2ppeal
@;A
$ith the RTC, $hich gave due course to the sa&e.
@6A
The records reveal that on 4ece&)er 1;, /##-, respondent 9lena I. Iarcia $rote a letter to
(udge 2rturo M. Cernardo, 2cting (udge of RTC Iapan, Cranch 8!, stating that they $ere
surprised to receive a co&&unication fro& the court infor&ing the& that their notice of appeal
$as ready for disposition. <he also stated in the letter that there $as no for&al agree&ent $ith
2tty. Mag)itang as to $hether they $ould pursue an appeal $ith the C2, )ecause one of the
plaintiffs $as still in 2&erica.
@!A
1n 'e)ruary 6, /##!, the C2 rendered a 4ecision in favor of respondents. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads6
BD9R9'1R9, pre&ises considered, the appeal is here)y IR2NT94 and the assailed 1rder
dated 1cto)er /", /##/ issued )y the Regional Trial Court *RTC+ of Iapan, Nueva 9cija,
Cranch 8!, is R9=9R<94 and <9T 2<349. 2ccordingly, the su)ject co&plaint is reinstated
and the records of the case is *sic+ here)y re&anded to the RTC for further proceedings.
<1 1R49R94.
@8A
The C2 concluded that the dispute )et$een the parties $as purely civil, not agrarian, in nature.
2ccording to the C2, the allegations in the co&plaint revealed that the principal relief sought $as
the nullification of the purported deed of sale and reconveyance of the su)ject property. 3t also
noted that there $as no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian relations )et$een the parties.
Thus, this petition, raising the follo$ing issues for the resolution of this Court6
1. Bhether or not the C2 erred in not dis&issing the appeal despite the undisputed fact that 2tty.
Mag)itang filed the notice of appeal $ithout respondents, 0no$ledge and consent8
/. Bhether or not the C2 erred in giving due course to the appeal despite the fact that 2tty.
Mag)itang,s appellants, )rief failed to co&ply $ith the &andatory re5uire&ents of <ection 1-,
Rule "" of the Rules of Court regarding the contents of an appellants, )rief8 and
-. Bhether or not the C2 erred in ruling that the RTC *Regional Trial Court+, not the 42R2C
*4epart&ent of 2grarian Refor& 2djudication Coard+ or the 72R24NR2R24
*7rovincialNRegional 2grarian 7rovincial 2grarian Refor& 2djudicator+, has jurisdiction over
respondents, co&plaint.
@9A
The C2 did not err in giving due course to the appeal, on )oth procedural and su)stantive
grounds.
2 la$yer $ho represents a client )efore the trial court is presu&ed to represent such client
)efore the appellate court. <ection // of Rule 1-8 creates this presu&ption, thus6
<9C. //. A&&(%n$3 <0( a::$a%" 'n *(<$% #(!%& :%$"!m$ &( %$:%$"$n& #*'$n& (n a::$a*. R 2n
attorney $ho appears$ :a%&$ in a case )efore a lo$er court shall )e presu&ed to continue
representing his client on appeal, unless he files a for&al petition $ithdra$ing his appearance in
the appellate court.
2 reading of respondent 9lena Iarcia,s letter to the RTC $ould sho$ that she did not actually
$ithdra$ 2tty. Mag)itang,s authority to represent respondents in the case. The letter &erely
stated that there $as, as yet, no agree&ent that they $ould pursue an appeal.
3n any case, an unauthori?ed appearance of an attorney &ay )e ratified )y the client either
e%pressly or i&pliedly. Ratification retroacts to the date of the la$yer,s first appearance and
validates the action ta0en )y hi&.
@1#A
3&plied ratification &ay ta0e various for&s, such as )y
silence or ac5uiescence, or )y acceptance and retention of )enefits flo$ing therefro&.
@11A
Respondents, silence or lac0 of re&onstration $hen the case $as finally elevated to the C2
&eans that they have ac5uiesced to the filing of the appeal.
Moreover, a la$yer is &andated to .serve his client $ith co&petence and
diligence..
@1/A
Conse5uently, a la$yer is entreated not to neglect a legal &atter entrusted to hi&8
other$ise, his negligence in connection there$ith shall render hi& lia)le.
@1-A
3n light of such
&andate, 2tty. Mag)itang,s act of filing the notice of appeal $ithout $aiting for her clients to
direct hi& to do so $as understanda)le, if not co&&enda)le.
The C2 $as li0e$ise correct in holding that the case is $ithin the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the
42R2C.
'or the 42R2C to have jurisdiction over a case, there &ust )e a tenancy relationship )et$een
the parties. 3t is, therefore, essential to esta)lish all the indispensa)le ele&ents of a tenancy
relationship, to $it6 *1+ that the parties are the lando$ner and the tenant or agricultural lessee8
*/+ that the su)ject &atter of the relationship is an agricultural land8 *-+ that there is consent
)et$een the parties to the relationship8 *"+ that the purpose of the relationship is to )ring a)out
agricultural production8 *;+ that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee8 and *6+ that the harvest is shared )et$een the lando$ner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.
@1"A
Casic is the rule that jurisdiction is deter&ined )y the allegations in the co&plaint.
@1;A
Respondents, co&plaint did not contain any allegation that $ould, even in the slightest, i&ply
that there $as a tenancy relation )et$een the& and the petitioners. Be are in full agree&ent
$ith the follo$ing findings of the C2 on this point6
% % % 2 reading of the &aterial aver&ents of the co&plaint reveals that the principal relief sought
)y plaintiffsappellants is for the nullification of the supposedly forged deed of sale $hich
resulted in the issuance of TCT No. NT18866" covering their 8hectare property as $ell as its
reconveyance, and not for the cancellation of C:12s as clai&ed )y defendantsappellees.
Moreover, the parties herein have no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian relations
$hatsoever that could have )rought this controversy under the a&)it of the agrarian refor&
la$s. Neither $ere the C:12 a$ardees i&pleaded as parties in this case nor the latter,s
entitle&ent thereto 5uestioned. Dence, contrary to the findings of the RTC, the herein dispute is
purely civil and not agrarian in nature falling $ithin the e%clusive jurisdiction of the trial courts.
1n the alleged deficiency of the appellants, )rief filed )efore the C2 )y the respondents, suffice
it to state that the re5uire&ents in <ection 1-, Rule "" are intended to aid the appellate court in
arriving at a just and proper resolution of the case. 1)viously, the C2 found the appellants, )rief
sufficient in for& and su)stance as the appellate court $as a)le to arrive at a just decision. Be
have repeatedly held that technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, not to
suppress, su)stantial justice. 2 deviation fro& a rigid enforce&ent of the rules &ay, thus, )e
allo$ed in order to attain this pri&e o)jective for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the core
reason for the e%istence of courts.
@16A
8HEREFORE, pre&ises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of 2ppeals, 4ecision
dated 'e)ruary 6, /##! is AFFIR.ED.
SO ORDERED.
Yna%$"-San&'a>(, /C0a'%:$%"(n1, C0'#(-Na2a%'(, V$*a"#(, J%., Na#0!%a, and P$%a*&a, JJ., concur.
SE#OND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 5-681, .4, )1, 1982 ]
LILIA B. BARRERA, REPRESENTED BY MIGUEL R. LOGARTA, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH -II, AND CARMEN BELLE,A, ELEUTERIA CABRERA,
BALDOMERO HERNANI, BENJAMIN SEVILLA, AND LUCAS DE LA CAL,ADA,
RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
DE #ASTRO, $.%
<pecial civil action of #$%&'(%a%' to annul and set aside the 1rders of respondent 'rancis (.
Militante, 7residing (udge of the Court of 'irst 3nstance of Ce)u, Cranch S33, issued on (une 11
and /#, 198#, in Civil Case No. R1!61! entitled .:ilia C. Carrera, etc., 7laintiff, versus, Car&en
Celle?a, et al., 4efendants,. respectively dis&issing petitioner,s co&plaint and denying the
&otion for reconsideration of the said order of dis&issal.
The foregoing 1rders of respondent (udge read as follo$s6
.Bhen this case $as called for hearing today, the defendants *private respondents herein+ and
their counsel appeared. Neither the plaintiff *petitioner herein+ nor her counsel appeared. 3n vie$
of the failure of the plaintiff to appear despite the fact that she $as duly notified, this case is
here)y dis&issed.
.3T 3< <1 1R49R94.
.Iiven in open court, Ce)u City, this 11th day of (une 198#..
@1A
.'inding the &otion for reconsideration to )e $ithout &erit, the sa&e is here)y 49N394.
.3T 3< <1 1R49R94.
.Iiven in open court, Ce)u City, this /#th day of (une, 198#..
@/A
3t appears that on 4ece&)er 1-, 19!8, petitioner filed a co&plaint in the Court of 'irst 3nstance
of Ce)u, doc0eted as Civil Case No. R1!61!, against private respondents for recovery of
o$nership and possession of a parcel of land designated as :ot "-;6 of the TalisayMinglanilla
'riar :ands 9state, and da&ages. 7rivate respondents $ere accordingly su&&oned to ans$er
said co&plaint and to enter into pretrial and trial. The case $as set for pretrial conferences at
various dates, the last t$o of $hich, $ere on May 18, 198# and on (une 11, 198# at 86-# 2.M.
The scheduled pretrial conference of May 18, 198# $as postponed to (une 11, 198# )ecause
of the unreadiness of petitioner,s counsel to go on $ith the pretrial conference. Bhen the case
$as called for pretrial conference on (une 11, 198# at 86-# 2.M., neither petitioner nor her
counsel appeared, thus pro&pting respondent (udge to issue the dis&issal order of even date
as 5uoted a)ove.
1n (une 1!, 198#, petitioner filed a &otion
@-A
to reconsider said dis&issal order, stating that on
the scheduled pretrial conference of (une 11, 198#, her counsel, $ho $as allegedly ar&ed $ith
.a special po$er of attorney to appear at the pretrial and to enter into a co&pro&ise $as a little
late,. )ecause .the secretary of the la$ office did not arrive early in the said office $here counsel
could pic0 up the records of the case on his $ay to Court..
@"A
2ttached to said &otion for reconsi
deration is an affidavit of the supposed secretary of the a)overeferred la$ office, stating that
she $as feverish so&eti&e last (une 11, 198#, and $as thus una)le to report for $or0 early.
7etitioner,s a)ovestated &otion $as ho$ever denied )y the respondent (udge for lac0 of &erit
in the order of (une /#, 198#, also as a)ove5uoted.
Dence, the present recourse, petitioner clai&ing that respondent (udge co&&itted grave a)use
of discretion in dis&issing her co&plaint as $ell as in denying her &otion for reconsideration.
'ro& a casual perusal of the order of dis&issal of (une 11, 198#, Be can readily understand the
considerations $hich pro&pted the respondent (udge in dis&issing petitioner,s co&plaint,
especially considering that since the filing of the co&plaint on 4ece&)er 1-, 19!8 up to the
issuance of the order of dis&issal on (une 11, 198#, or a lapsed period of a)out eighteen
&onths, the pretrial stage of the case has not yet )een ter&inated, sho$ing that its progress
$as a)nor&ally very slo$. Moreover, unrefuted )y petitioner is private respondent,s clai& that in
all the pretrial conferences scheduled )y the lo$er court, petitioner has never appeared nor
does the record sho$ that she had e%ecuted a special po$er of attorney in favor of either her
attorneyinfact Miguel R. :ogarta or her counsel of record to serve as the $ritten authority to
represent her in said pretrial conferences, $ith po$er to co&pro&ise the case.
@;A
This is a
&easure conducive to the early and e%peditious ter&ination of the case, $hich is consistent $ith
the purpose of a pretrial as provided under <ection 1 of Rule /#, $hich petitioner could have
easily availed of )ut did not.
'or failure of the petitioner and her counsel to appear at the last scheduled pretrial of (une 11,
198#, the lo$er court is given the discretion to dis&iss the case, said failure to appear )eing a
ground to authori?e dis&issal of the co&plaint for failure to prosecute.
@6A
Be find no reversi)le
error co&&itted )y the respondent (udge in dis&issing the case on this ground.
The e%planation given in petitioner,s &otion for reconsideration regarding her counsel,s alleged
late arrival in court at the pretrial conference of (une 11, 198#, is far fro& )eing satisfactory.
Bhile an affidavit supposedly e%ecuted )y the secretary of counsel,s la$ office $as attached to
the &otion for reconsideration, the sa&e $as not even supported )y a &edical certificate,
authenticated or other$ise, to su)stantiate the official,s clai& of illness $hich is her supposed
reason of failing to report for $or0 early. Cesides, as correctly pointed out )y private
respondents, the allegation of the office secretary that she arrived in the la$ office at al&ost 96##
in the &orning of (une 11, 198# does not ji)e $ith the allegation of counsel for the petitioner that
he arrived in court so&e ten &inutes after 861; 2.M. of said day $hen the case $as called for
pretrial.
Counsel for the petitioner $ould, li0e$ise, have Js )elieve that he $as ar&ed $ith a special
po$er of attorney, $ithout, ho$ever, sho$ing the scope, e%tent and li&its of the authority
granted hi&. Borse still, said special po$er of attorney $as only allegedly e%ecuted )y
petitioner,s attorneyinfact, one Miguel R. :ogarta, the scope, e%tent and li&its of $hose
authority $as, li0e$ise, not sho$n. 2s earlier indicated, the record does not sho$ that petitioner
had e%ecuted a special po$er of attorney in favor of either her attorneyinfact or her counsel of
record. Be are thus left $ithout any idea as to the nature and e%tent of said alleged authority,
$hich have to )e proven, )ecause <ection /-, Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court re5uires, for
attorneys to co&pro&ise the litigation of their clients, a .special authority.. 2nd $hile the sa&e
does not state that the special authority )e in $riting, the court has every reason to e%pect that, if
not in $riting, the sa&e )e duly esta)lished )y evidence other than the selfserving assertion of
counsel hi&self that such authority $as given hi&. The respondent (udge, therefore, did not act
erroneously, &uch less a)use his discretion gravely, in denying the &otion for reconsideration in
spite of such &anifestation of petitioner,s counsel )ecause the authority to co&pro&ise cannot
lightly )e presu&ed.! 2nd if, $ith good reason, the judge is not satisfied that said authority
e%ists, as in this case, dis&issal of the case for nonappearance of petitioner in pretrial is
sanctioned )y the Rules.
Be ta0e this opportunity to re&ind the lo$er courts once &ore that the issuance of &inute
orders, li0e the one denying the &otion for reconsideration of petitioner, is not sanctioned )y our
jurisprudence. 2s categorically stated )y this Court in Continental Can0 v. Tiangco, 9" <CR2
!1;6
.Be have ad&onished the trial courts not to issue a &inute order li0e the one under appeal. 2
trial court should specify in its order the reasons for the dis&issal of the co&plaint so that $hen
the order is appealed, this Court can readily deter&ine fro& a casual perusal thereof $hether
there is a pri&a facie justification for the dis&issal..
Cut not$ithstanding the foregoing o&ission of respondent (udge, Be cannot ho$ever grant the
instant petition for reasons already e%plained earlier.
8HEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dis&issed. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
A5!'n(, G!$%%$%(, and E"#(*'n, JJ., concur.
Ba%%$(, J., *Chair&an+, reserve his vie$ as to the o)servation &ade )y (. 2)ad <antos $hich
needs further study of the correlation )et$een the / of Rule /#, on the one hand, and <ecs. /
and - of Rule 1!. 2)ad <antos, (., concur. De ta0es it that the petition can file a ne$ co&plaint
provided that her action has not prescri)ed. Concepcion, (., on leave.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 1)7785, S/9t/01/2 *-, 2*** ]
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. VINE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY VICENTE C. PONCE@ AND ROMONAFE
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY OSCAR F. TIRONA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
:ANGANI3AN, $.%
2lthough not authori?ed to handle cases pending in the Court of 2ppeals and the <upre&e
Court, la$yers of the National 7o$er Corporation &ay nonetheless file notices of appeal of
adverse decisions rendered )y trial courts. They cannot, ho$ever, enter into co&pro&ise
agree&ents $ithout any specific authority to do so.
T5/ #4s/
Cefore us is a 7etition for Revie$ on Certiorari under Rule "; of the Rules of Court, assailing the
(anuary 19, 1999 Resolution of the Court of 2ppeals *C2+ in C2IR C= No. ;!!1#,
@1A
$hich is
5uoted here in full6
.2t the hearing of this case on 4ece&)er 1#, 1998, the Donora)le Ricardo 7. Ialve?, <olicitor
Ieneral, appeared personally and &oved for the dis&issal of the case on the ground that the
authority of the la$yers of the National 7o$er Corporation to appear as <pecial 2ttorneys of the
<olicitor Ieneral is li&ited to cases )efore the lo$er courts *RTCs and MTCs+. De also invo0es
the provisions of the 2d&inistrative Code *<ection -;*1+ Chapter 1/, Title 333, Coo0 3=+ that said
la$yers have no authority to appear )efore this Court.
.BD9R9'1R9, $ithout o)jection on the part of all the parties in this case, the instant appeal is
43<M3<<94..
@/A
2lso challenged )y petitioner is the March 8, 1999 C2 Resolution denying their Motion for
Reconsideration, pertinent portions of $hich are 5uoted hereunder6
.%%% *B+hether or not the <olicitor Ieneral &oved for the dis&issal of the appeal, the foregoing
copious notes sho$ )eyond cavil the courts, resolve to dis&iss cases appealed to this Court )y
N271C1R,s house la$yers $ithout coursing the appeal to the <olicitor Ieneral.
.That the <olicitor Ieneral did not as0 for the dis&issal of the appeal is irrelevant8 his )elated
Manifestation giving the N271C1R counsels putative authority to appeal to us cannot cure the
)asic legal defect $hich is a violation of the 2d&inistrative Code *<ection -;*1+, Chapter 1/,
Title 333, Coo0 3=+. Be have said so in all the &any cases )rought to us )y N271C1R,s counsel.
Be iterate the sa&e rulings.
.Motion 49N394..
@-A
T5/ F4ts
The undisputed facts of the case are su&&ari?ed )y the 1ffice of the <olicitor Ieneral *1<I+ as
follo$s6
.1. 1n (uly 1/, 199;, petitioner instituted a co&plaint for e%propriation of several parcels of land
located at <an 2gustin, 4as&ariHas, Cavite, $ith an area of 96,96-.-8 and "8,1#-.1/ s5uare
&eters, respectively o$ned )y respondents =ine 4evelop&ent Corporation *=ine hereafter+ and
Ro&onafe Corporation *Ro&onafe for )revity+. The case $as doc0eted as Civil Case No. 11"#
9; and $as raffled to Cranch /1 of the Regional Trial Court in 3&us, Cavite.
./. 1n (anuary /6, 1996, the trial court issued a $rit of possession authori?ing petitioner to enter
and ta0e possession of the property after a sho$ing that it ha@dA deposited $ith the 7hilippine
National Can0 the a&ount of 7",616,//-.-! representing the assessed value of the property for
ta%ation purposes pursuant to the provisions of 7.4. "/ and the <upre&e Court ruling in National
7o$er Corporation versus (ocson, /#6 <CR2 ;/# *199/+.
.-. Cy 1rder dated 4ece&)er -, 1996, the trial court constituted a panel of co&&issioners for
purposes of deter&ining the just co&pensation of su)ject property. The panel conducted an
ocular inspection of the property on (anuary 1#, 199!.
.". 3n an undated Co&&issioner,s =aluation Report, the panel reco&&ended just co&pensation
at the rate of 7-,;##.## per s5uare &eter.
.;. 9arlier, ho$ever, the 7rovincial 2ppraisal Co&&ittee *72C+ issued Resolution No. #89;
dated 1cto)er /;, 199; placing the fair &ar0et value of Ro&onafe and =ine,s su)ject property at
71,;##.## and 7/,###.## per s5uare &eter, respectively.
.6. 1ne *1+ year and eight *8+ &onths later, the 72C a&ended its aforesaid resolution under
72C Resolution No. #!9! dated (une /;, 199! )y increasing the valuation of the Ro&onafe,s
property fro& 71,;##.## to 7-,;##.## per s5uare &eter, or an increase of 7/,###.## per s5uare
&eter. The a&end&ent $as &ade in response to the letter of reconsideration dated (une 9,
199! filed )y Ro&onafe.
.!. Bhile the case $as pending, petitioner negotiated $ith Ro&onafe for the ac5uisition of an
additional area of /!,/9-.88 s5uare &eters of its adjacent land.
.8. 2fter due trial, the lo$er court rendered its 4ecision on <epte&)er ;, 199!, the dispositive
portion of $hich reads6
,BD9R9'1R9, judg&ent is here)y rendered declaring that the parcels of land of the defendants
hereina)ove descri)ed consisting of 1"6,#66.; s5uare &eters to have )een la$fully
e%propriated and no$ )elong to the plaintiff to )e used for pu)lic purpose.
,The plaintiff is here)y ordered to pay to the defendants, through the Cranch Cler0 of Court, the
fair &ar0et value of the property at 7-,;##.## per s5uare &eter, that is, for defendant =ine
4evelop&ent Corporation, the total su& of7--9,-!1,8-#.## and for defendant Ro&onafe
Corporation, the total su& of 7168,-6#,9/#.## plus legal rate of interest i.e., 6T per annu&
starting fro& the ti&e the plaintiff too0 possession of the property up to the ti&e the full a&ount
shall have )een paid.
. . . . . . . . .
,The Cranch Cler0 of Court of this Court is here)y ordered to have a certified copy of this
decision )e registered in the 1ffice of the Registry of 4eeds of Cavite.
. . . . . . . . .
,<1 1R49R94.,
*Jnderscoring ours+
.9. 7etitioner '%$#&*3 appealed the foregoing decision to the Court of 2ppeals on the ground that
it is contrary to la$, jurisprudence and evidence on record. The case $as doc0eted as C2I.R.
C= No. ;!!1#.
.1#. 4uring the pendency of the appeal, petitioner and Ro&onafe entered into a Co&pro&ise
2gree&ent *copy attached as 2nne% C1+ under $hich petitioner $ould ac5uire seventy five
thousand three hundred ninety seven *!;,-9!+ s5uare &eters of land co&prising the "8,1#-.1/
s5uare &eters su)ject of the appeal and /!,/9-.88 s5uare &eters at 7-,;## per s5uare &eter.
Ro&onafe $ould give petitioner a total discount of 76,;"/,81#."# so &uch so that the net
principal a&ount representing the total purchase price of the land a&ounts to t$o hundred eighty
&illion pesos *7/8#,###,###.##+.
.11. Cy Resolution dated (une /, 1998, the Court of 2ppeals gave the 1<I a period of ten *1#+
days to co&&ent on said co&pro&ise agree&ent.
.1/. 3n its Co&&ent dated 2ugust 18, 1998, the 1<I prayed that the co&pro&ise agree&ent )e
disapproved and that the appeal )e instead resolved on the &erits. 2 copy of said co&&ent is
hereto attached as 2nne% C.
.1-. 1n <epte&)er -#, 1998, the 1<I filed a &otion to ad&it its supple&ental co&&ent
$here)y it )rought to the attention of the Court of 2ppeals the fact that the Co&pro&ise
2gree&ent $as signed )y the deputi?ed counsels of the petitioner in flagrant violation @ofA the
ter&s and conditions of their deputation. 2 copy of said supple&ental co&&ent is hereto
attached as 2nne% 4.
.1". Cy Resolution dated Nove&)er /;, 1998, the Court of 2ppeals set the case for hearingNoral
argu&ent on 4ece&)er 1#, 1998.
.1;. 4uring the 4ece&)er 1#, 1998 hearing, the <olicitor Ieneral personally appeared and
argued that su)ject co&pro&ise agree&ent suffers fro& t$o */+ fatal infir&ities, na&ely6 *1+ it is
grossly disadvantageous to the govern&ent8 and */+ the deputi?ed la$yers of the petitioner have
no legal authority to )ind the <olicitor Ieneral @toA the sa&e agree&ent.
.16. The follo$ing day, or on 4ece&)er 11, 1998, the 1<I filed a Manifestation dated
4ece&)er 11, 1998 *copy attached as 2nne% 9+, the full te%t of $hich reads6
,TD9 1''3C9 1' TD9 <1:3C3T1R I9N9R2: *1<I+, to this Donora)le Court, respectfully
&anifests that the 1<I@Adeputi?ed counsel of the National 7o$er Corporation *N271C1R+
have the authority to file notices of appeal in cases )eing handled )y the& such as the su)ject
case pursuant to their deputation letters. Do$ever, such authority does not e%tend to $ithdra$al
of said appeal, e%ecution of co&pro&ise agree&ents and filing of pleadings )efore the appellate
courts $ithout the revie$ and approval of the <olicitor Ieneral.
.1!. 3n a Resolution dated (anuary 19, 1999, the Court of 2ppeals dis&issed petitioner,s appeal,
thus6
% % % % % % % % %
.18. 7etitioner, through counsel, i&&ediately filed its &otion for reconsideration on 'e)ruary ;,
1999 *copy attached as 2nne% '+ $hich the Court of 2ppeals denied in its Resolution dated
March 8, 1999 % % %..
@"A
Dence, this 7etition.
@;A
T5/ Issu/s
7etitioner raises the follo$ing issues6
.2 The Donora)le Court of 2ppeals patently erred in declaring that the <olicitor Ieneral
personally &oved for the dis&issal of the appeal during the hearing conducted on 4ece&)er 1#,
1998.
.C The Donora)le Court of 2ppeals erred in dis&issing the appeal for lac0 of legal or factual
)asis..
<ince the t$o issues are interrelated, $e shall ta0e the& up jointly as follo$s6 4id the N7C
la$yers have the authority to *a+ file the appeal fro& the trial court and *)+ enter into the
Co&pro&ise 2gree&entL
T5/ #ou2t;s Ru+!"g
The 7etition is &eritorious.
.4!" Issu/%
Authority of the NPC Lawyers
1n the grounds that *1+ the N7C la$yers had no authority to file the appeal, and */+ <olicitor
Ieneral Ricardo 7. Ialve? had personally &oved for its dis&issal during the 1ral 2rgu&ent on
4ece&)er 1#, 1998, the C2 dis&issed the said appeal. 1n the other hand, the state la$yer
contends that he did not as0 for a dis&issal, )ut only o)jected to the Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent
entered into )y and )et$een Ro&onafe Corporation and petitioner. 2ccording to hi&, the
2gree&ent suffers fro& t$o fatal infir&ities6 *1+ it is grossly disadvantageous to the govern&ent,
and */+ the 1<Ideputi?ed la$yers of petitioner had no legal authority to )ind the solicitor
general.
Be agree $ith the solicitor general. There is nothing in the records of the 1ral 2rgu&ent
sho$ing that he had &oved for the dis&issal of the appeal. Rather, his ardent prayer, even in his
Co&&ent dated 2ugust 18, 1998, had )een to disapprove the Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent and to
resolve the appeal on its &erits.
No Legal Basis for
Dismissal of Appeal
3t is undisputed that the 1<I has .supervision in the handling. of N7C court cases as provided
for in <ection 1;2 of Repu)lic 2ct No. 6-9;, $hich states as follo$s6
.<ec. 1;2. The corporation shall )e under the direct supervision of the 1ffice of the 7resident
and all legal &atters shall )e handled )y the Chief :egal Counsel of the corporation, provided
that the <olicitor Ieneral,s 1ffice shall have supervision in the handling of court cases only of
the corporation..
'urther&ore, the authority of the 1<I to represent N7C is specified in <ection -;*1+, Chapter
1/, Title 333, Coo0 3= of 91 /9/, $hich provides6
.<9C. -;. 7o$ers and 'unctions. The 1ffice of the <olicitor Ieneral shall represent the
Iovern&ent of the 7hilippines, its agencies and instru&entalities and its officials and agents in
any litigation, proceeding, investigation or &atter re5uiring the services of la$yers. Bhen
authori?ed )y the 7resident or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent govern&ent
o$ned or controlled corporations. The 1ffice of the <olicitor Ieneral shall constitute the la$
office of the Iovern&ent and, as such, shall discharge duties re5uiring the services of la$yers. 3t
shall have the follo$ing specific po$ers and functions6
*1+ Represent the Iovern&ent in the <upre&e Court and the Court of 2ppeals in all
cri&inal proceedings8 represent the Iovern&ent and its officers in the <upre&e Court,
Court of 2ppeals, and all other courts or tri)unals in all civil actions and special
proceedings in $hich the Iovern&ent or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a
party..
To assist it in representing the govern&ent, the 1<I is e&po$ered to deputi?e legal officers of
govern&ent depart&ents, )ureaus, agencies and offices. 7aragraph 8 of the sa&e section reads
as follo$s6
.*8+ 4eputi?e legal officers of govern&ent depart&ents, )ureaus, agencies and offices to
assist the <olicitor Ieneral and appear or represent the Iovern&ent in cases involving
their respective offices, )rought )efore the courts and e%ercise supervision and control
over such legal officers $ith respect to such cases..
3n pursuance of such po$er, the 1<I issued to the N7C la$yers a letter of deputi?ation
@6A

$orded as follo$s6
.2s <pecial 2ttorneys, you are authori?ed to appear as counsel in all civil cases in the lo$er
courts *RTCs and MTCs+ involving the N7C, su)ject to the sa&e conditions stipulated in our
letters..
@!A
The C2 ruled that the deputi?ation of the N7C la$yers e%cluded the authority to file appeals in
the higher courts. Be disagree. Jnder <ection / *a+ , Rule "1
@8A
of the Revised Rules of Court
$hich pertains to ordinary appeals, the notice of appeal is filed in the very sa&e court $hich
rendered the assailed decision, $hich in this case $as the Regional Trial Court *RTC+ of 3&us,
Cavite. <ince the notice $as filed )efore the RTC, the N7C la$yers acted clearly $ithin their
authority. 3ndeed, their action ensured that the appeal $as filed $ithin the regle&entary period.
Regardless of $hich &ode of appeal is used, the appeal itself is presu&ed )eneficial to the
govern&ent8 hence, it should )e allo$ed. 2fter all, the 1<I &ay $ithdra$ it, if it )elieves that
the appeal $ill not advance the govern&ent,s cause.
The reason for the continuous dis&issal of N7C appeals in the C2 is not the a)sence of
authority of the la$yers per se, )ut the failure of these la$yers to infor& the 1<I of the lo$er
court,s adverse decision, resulting in the 1<I,s lac0 of participation in the appellate proceeding.
Iranting arguendo that the N7C la$yers had no authority to file the appeal, this defect $as
cured )y the 1<I,s su)se5uent Manifestation, the full te%t of $hich reads6
.TD9 1''3C9 1' TD9 <1:3C3T1R I9N9R2: *1<I+ to this Donora)le Court, respectfully
&anifests that the 1<I@A deputi?ed counsels of the National 7o$er Corporation *N271C1R+
have the authority to file notices of appeal in cases )eing handled )y the& such as the su)ject
case pursuant to their deputation letters. Do$ever, such authority does not e%tend to $ithdra$al
of said appeal, e%ecution of co&pro&ise agree&ents and filing of pleadings )efore the appellate
courts $ithout the revie$ and approval of the <olicitor Ieneral..
Authority to Compromise
.2 co&pro&ise is an agree&ent )et$een t$o or &ore persons $ho, to avoid a la$suit, a&ica)ly
settle their differences on such ter&s as they can agree on..
@9A
2 co&pro&ise &ay )e effected
)y persons $ho, as e%pressed or i&plied fro& their relations, are representing and acting under
the authority of the parties to a controversy. 3n the a)sence of such authority, no co&pro&ise )y
a third person is )inding,
@1#A
as 2rticle 18!8 of the Civil Code provides that an agent, such as the
counsel for the case, needs a special po$er to co&pro&ise. Dence, in M(n&$ $ P'$a ..
R(%'>(,
@11A
the Court ruled that .if an attorney is not authori?ed )y the client, he cannot
co&pro&ise his client,s clai&.. 'urther&ore, <ection /-, Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court re5uires
.special authority. for attorneys to )ind their clients6
.<ection /-. A!&0(%'&3 (; a&&(%n$3" &( ='n #*'$n&". 2ttorneys have authority to )ind their clients
in any case )y any agree&ent in relation thereto &ade in $riting, and in ta0ing appeals, and in
all &atters of ordinary judicial procedure. Cut they cannot, $ithout special authority, co&pro&ise
their client,s litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client,s clai& )ut the full a&ount in
cash..
3f, as already ruled, N7C la$yers cannot even handle Napocor cases in the C2, ho$ indeed can
they )e allo$ed to )ind Napocor to co&pro&isesL 4efinitely then, their signatures on the instant
Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent are invalid.
BD9R9'1R9, the 7etition is GRANTED and the appealed 4ecision REER!ED and !ET
A!"DE. The case is here)y RE#ANDED to the Court of 2ppeals for disposition on the &erits as
prayed for )y the 1ffice of the <olicitor Ieneral. No costs.
<1 1R49R94.
M$*(, /C0a'%man1, V'&!>, P!%'"'ma, and G(n2a>a-R$3$", JJ., concur.
!ANT$! ENT%RA &$C$R#A '$%NDAT"$N( "NC)( REPRE!ENTED B* GABR"EL &)
ABAD( C$#PLA"NANT( !) ATT*) R"C&ARD ) '%N+( RE!P$NDENT)
2C24, (.6
This is a dis)ar&ent case against a la$yer $ho sued a for&er client in representation of a ne$ one.
T5/ F4ts 4"< t5/ #4s/
Co&plainant <antos =entura Docor&a 'oundation, 3nc. *Docor&a 'oundation+ filed a co&plaint
for dis)ar&ent against respondent 2tty. Richard 'un0. 3t alleged that 2tty. 'un0 used to $or0 as
corporate secretary, counsel, chief e%ecutive officer, and trustee of the foundation fro& 198- to
198;.
@1A
De also served as its counsel in several cri&inal and civil cases.
Docor&a 'oundation further alleged that on Nove&)er /;, /##6 2tty. 'un0 filed an action for
5uieting of title and da&ages against Docor&a 'oundation on )ehalf of Ma)alacat 3nstitute, 3nc.
*Ma)alacat 3nstitute+. 2tty. 'un0 did so, according to the foundation, using infor&ation that he
ac5uired $hile serving as its counsel in violation of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility
*C7R+ and in )reach of attorneyclient relationship.
@/A
3n his ans$er, 2tty. 'un0 averred that 4on Teodoro =. <antos *<antos+ organi?ed Ma)alacat
3nstitute in 19;# and Docor&a 'oundation in 19!9. <antos hired hi& in (anuary 198/ to assist
<antos and the organi?ations he esta)lished, including the Ma)alacat 3nstitute, in its legal
pro)le&s. 3n 198- the Ma)alacat 3nstitute &ade 2tty. 'un0 serve as a director and legal counsel.
@-A
<u)se5uently, according to 2tty. 'un0, $hen <antos got involved in various litigations, he sold or
donated su)stantial portions of his real and personal properties to the Docor&a 'oundation.
<antos hired 2tty. 'un0 for this purpose. The latter e&phasi?ed that, in all these, the attorney
client relationship $as al$ays )et$een <antos and hi&. De $as &ore of <antosE personal
la$yer than the la$yer of Docor&a 'oundation.
@"A
2tty. 'un0 clai&ed that )efore <antos left for 2&erica in 2ugust 198- for &edical treat&ent, he
entered into a retainer agree&ent $ith hi&. They agreed that 2tty. 'un0 $ould )e paid for his
legal services out of the properties that he donated or sold to the Docor&a 'oundation. The
foundation approved that co&pensation agree&ent on 4ece&)er 1-, 198-. Cut it reneged and
$ould not pay 2tty. 'un0Es legal fees.
@;A
2tty. 'un0 also clai&ed that <antos e%ecuted a <pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney *<72+ in his favor on
2ugust 1-, 198-. The <72 authori?ed hi& to advise Docor&a 'oundation and follo$ up $ith it
<antosE sale or donation of a ;hectare land in 7a&panga to Ma)alacat 3nstitute, covered )y
TCT 19989R. 1ut of these, t$o hectares already co&prised its school site. The re&aining three
hectares $ere for ca&pus e%pansion.
2tty. 'un0 $as to collect all e%penses for the property transfer fro& Docor&a 'oundation out of
funds that <antos provided. 3t $as <antosE intention since 19;# to give the land to Ma)alacat
3nstitute free of rent and e%penses. The <72 also authori?ed 2tty. 'un0 to register the ;hectare
land in the na&e of Ma)alacat 3nstitute so a ne$ title could )e issued to it, separate fro& the
properties of Docor&a 'oundation.
@6A
Bhen <antos issued the <72, 2tty. 'un0 $as Ma)alacat
3nstituteEs director and counsel. De $as not yet Docor&a 'oundationEs counsel.
@!A
Bhen <antos
e%ecuted the deeds of conveyances, 2tty. 'un0Es clients $ere only <antos and Ma)alacat
3nstitute.
@8A
2ccording to 2tty. 'un0, on 2ugust 1;, 198- <antos suggested to Docor&a 'oundationEs Coard
of Trustees the inclusion of 2tty. 'un0 in that )oard, a suggestion that the foundation follo$ed.
@9A
2fter <antos died on <epte&)er 1", 198-, 2tty. 'un0 $as elected 7resident of Ma)alacat
3nstitute, a position he had since held.
@1#A
2tty. 'un0 clai&s that in 198; $hen Docor&a 'oundation refused to pay his attorneyEs fees, he
severed his professional relationship $ith it. 1n Nove&)er 9, 1989, four years later, he filed a
co&plaint against the foundation for collection of his attorneyEs fees. The trial court, the Court of
2ppeals *C2+, and the <upre&e Court decided the clai& in his favor.
@11A
2fter hearing, the Co&&ittee on Car 4iscipline *CC4+ found 2tty. 'un0 to have violated Canon
1;, Rule 1;.#-
@1/A
of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility *C7R+ $ith the aggravating
circu&stance of a pattern of &isconduct consisting of four court appearances against his for&er
client, the Docor&a 'oundation. The CC4 reco&&ended 2tty. 'un0Es suspension fro& the
practice of la$ for one year.
@1-A
1n 2pril 16, /#1# the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors adopted and
approved the CC4Es report and reco&&endation.
@1"A
2tty. 'un0 &oved for reconsideration )ut the
3C7 Coard of Iovernors denied it on (une /6, /#11.
T5/ Issu/ :2/s/"t/<
The issue here is $hether or not 2tty. 'un0 )etrayed the trust and confidence of a for&er client
in violation of the C7R $hen he filed several actions against such client on )ehalf of a ne$ one.
T5/ #ou2t=s Ru+!"g
Canon 1;, Rule 1;.#- of the C7R provides that a la$yer cannot represent conflicting interests
e%cept )y $ritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Dere, it is
undenia)le that 2tty. 'un0 $as for&erly the legal counsel of Docor&a 'oundation. Mears after
ter&inating his relationship $ith the foundation, he filed a co&plaint against it on )ehalf of
another client, the Ma)alacat 3nstitute, $ithout the foundationEs $ritten consent.
2n attorney o$es his client undivided allegiance. Cecause of the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship, sound pu)lic policy dictates that he )e prohi)ited fro& representing conflicting
interests or discharging inconsistent duties. 2n attorney &ay not, $ithout )eing guilty of
professional &isconduct, act as counsel for a person $hose interest conflicts $ith that of his
present or for&er client. This rule is so a)solute that good faith and honest intention on the
erring la$yerEs part does not &a0e it inoperative.
@1;A
The reason for this is that a la$yer ac5uires 0no$ledge of his for&er clientEs doings, $hether
docu&ented or not, that he $ould ordinarily not have ac5uired $ere it not for the trust and
confidence that his client placed on hi& in the light of their relationship. 3t $ould si&ply )e
i&possi)le for the la$yer to identify and erase such entrusted 0no$ledge $ith faultless precision
or loc0 the sa&e into an iron )o% $hen suing the for&er client on )ehalf of a ne$ one.
Dere, the evidence sho$s that Docor&a 'oundation availed itself of the legal services of 2tty.
'un0 in connection $ith, a&ong others, the transfer of one of the properties su)ject of the
several suits that the la$yer su)se5uently filed against the foundation. 3ndeed, 2tty. 'un0
collected attorneyEs fees fro& the foundation for such services. Thus, he had an o)ligation not to
use any 0no$ledge he ac5uired during that relationship, including the fact that the property
under litigation e%isted at all, $hen he sued the foundation.
The Court tinds it fitting to adopt the CC4,s reco&&endation as $ell as the 3C7 Coard of
Iovernors, resolution respecting the case.
BD9R9'1R9, the Court 2''3RM< the resolution of the Coard or Iovernors of the 3ntegrated
Car of the 7hilippines dated 2pril 16, /#1 # and (une /6, /#11 and <J<79N4< 2tty. Richard
'un0 fro& the practice of l&v for one year effective i&&ediately. <erve copies of this decision
upon the 1ffice of the Court 2d&inistrator for disse&ination, the 3ntegrated Car or the
7hilippines, and the 1ffice of the Car Confidant so the latter &ay attach its copy to his record.
<1 1R49R94. V$*a"#(, J%., /C0a'%:$%"(n1, P$%a%&a, M$n(2a, and R$3$",
A
JJ., concur.
SE#OND DIVISION
[ A.#. No. 5*98, A92!+ 11, 2*12 ]
JOSEFINA M. ANIBON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
3RION, $.%
Be resolve this dis)ar&ent co&plaint against 2tty. Cle&encio <a)itsana, (r. $ho is charged of6
*1+ violating the la$yerEs duty to preserve confidential infor&ation received fro& his client8
@1A
and
*/+ violating the prohi)ition on representing conflicting interests.
@/A
3n her co&plaint, (osefina M. 2niHon *#(m:*a'nan&+ related that she previously engaged the legal
services of 2tty. <a)itsana in the preparation and e%ecution in her favor of a 4eed of <ale over a
parcel of land o$ned )y her late co&&onla$ hus)and, Crigido Caneja, (r. 2tty. <a)itsana
allegedly violated her confidence $hen he su)se5uently filed a civil case against her for the
annul&ent of the 4eed of <ale in )ehalf of >enaida :. CaHete, the legal $ife of Crigido Caneja,
(r. The co&plainant accused 2tty. <a)itsana of using the confidential infor&ation he o)tained
fro& her in filing the civil case.
2tty. <a)itsana ad&itted having advised the co&plainant in the preparation and e%ecution of the
4eed of <ale. Do$ever, he denied having received any confidential infor&ation. 2tty. <a)itsana
asserted that the present dis)ar&ent co&plaint $as instigated )y one 2tty. Ia)ino =elas5ue?,
(r., the notary of the dis)ar&ent co&plaint $ho lost a court case against hi& *2tty. <a)itsana+
and had instigated the co&plaint for this reason.
T5/ F!"<!"gs o> t5/ I3: I"?/st!g4t!"g #o00!ss!o"/2
3n our Resolution dated Nove&)er //, 1999, $e referred the dis)ar&ent co&plaint to the
Co&&ission on Car 4iscipline of the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines *3C7+ for investigation,
report and reco&&endation. 3n his Report and Reco&&endation dated Nove&)er /8, /##-, 3C7
Co&&issioner 7edro 2. Magpayo (r. found 2tty. <a)itsana ad&inistratively lia)le for
representing conflicting interests. The 3C7 Co&&issioner opined6
3n Cautista vs. Carrios, it $as held that a la$yer &ay not handle a case to nullify a contract $hich
he prepared and there)y ta0e up inconsistent positions. Iranting that >enaida :. CaHete,
respondentEs present client in Civil Case No. C1#6# did not initially learn a)out the sale
e%ecuted )y Contes in favor of co&plainant thru the confidences and infor&ation divulged )y
co&plainant to respondent in the course of the preparation of the said deed of sale, respondent
nonetheless has a duty to decline his current e&ploy&ent as counsel of >enaida CaHete in vie$
of the rule prohi)iting representation of conflicting interests.
3n re 4e la Rosa clearly suggests that a la$yer &ay not represent conflicting interests in the
a)sence of the $ritten consent of all parties concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
3n the present case, no such $ritten consent $as secured )y respondent )efore accepting
e&ploy&ent as Mrs. CaHeteEs counselofrecord. % % %
% % %
Co&plainant and respondentEs present client, )eing contending clai&ants to the sa&e property,
the conflict of interest is o)viously present. There is said to )e inconsistency of interest $hen on
)ehalf of one client, it is the attorneyEs duty to contend for that $hich his duty to another client
re5uires hi& to oppose. 3n )rief, if he argues for one client this argu&ent $ill )e opposed )y hi&
$hen he argues for the other client. <uch is the case $ith $hich $e are no$ confronted,
respondent )eing as0ed )y one client to nullify $hat he had for&erly notari?ed as a true and
valid sale )et$een Contes and the co&plainant. *footnotes o&itted+
@-A
The 3C7 Co&&issioner reco&&ended that 2tty. <a)itsana )e suspended fro& the practice of
la$ for a period of one *1+ year.
@"A
T5/ F!"<!"gs o> t5/ I3: 3o42< o> Go?/2"o2s
3n a resolution dated 'e)ruary /!, /##", the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors resolved to adopt and
approve the Report and Reco&&endation of the 3C7 Co&&issioner after finding it to )e fully
supported )y the evidence on record, the applica)le la$s and rules.
@;A
The 3C7 Coard of
Iovernors agreed $ith the 3C7 Co&&issionerEs reco&&ended penalty.
2tty. <a)itsana &oved to reconsider the a)ove resolution, )ut the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors
denied his &otion in a resolution dated (uly -#, /##".
T5/ Issu/
The issue in this case is $hether 2tty. <a)itsana is guilty of &isconduct for representing
conflicting interests.
T5/ #ou2t=s Ru+!"g
A>t/2 4 42/>u+ stu<, o> t5/ 2/o2<s, @/ 4g2// @!t5 t5/ >!"<!"gs 4"< 2/o00/"<4t!o"s o>
t5/ I3: #o00!ss!o"/2 4"< t5/ I3: 3o42< o> Go?/2"o2s.
The relationship )et$een a la$yer and hisNher client should ideally )e i&)ued $ith the highest
level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that &ust prevail to pro&ote a
full disclosure of the clientEs &ost confidential infor&ation to hisNher la$yer for an unha&pered
e%change of infor&ation )et$een the&. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
infor&ation to hisNher la$yer )ased on an e%pectation fro& the la$yer of ut&ost secrecy and
discretion8 the la$yer, for his part, is duty)ound to o)serve candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions $ith the client.
@6A
7art of the la$yerEs duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests, a &atter covered )y Rule 1;.#-, Canon 1; of the Code of
7rofessional Responsi)ility 5uoted )elo$6
Rule 1;.#-. 2 la$yer shall not represent conflicting interests e%cept )y $ritten consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
FThe proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation $here the
opposing parties are present clients in the sa&e action or in an unrelated action.G
@!A
The
prohi)ition also applies even if the Fla$yer $ould not )e called upon to contend for one client
that $hich the la$yer has to oppose for the other client, or that there $ould )e no occasion to
use the confidential infor&ation ac5uired fro& one to the disadvantage of the other as the t$o
actions are $holly unrelated.G
@8A
To )e held accounta)le under this rule, it is Fenough that the
opposing parties in one case, one of $ho& $ould lose the suit, are present clients and the
nature or conditions of the la$yerEs respective retainers $ith each of the& $ould affect the
perfor&ance of the duty of undivided fidelity to )oth clients.G
@9A
(urisprudence has provided three tests in deter&ining $hether a violation of the a)ove rule is
present in a given case.
1ne test is $hether a la$yer is duty)ound to fight for an issue or clai& in )ehalf of one client
and, at the sa&e ti&e, to oppose that clai& for the other client. Thus, if a la$yerEs argu&ent for
one client has to )e opposed )y that sa&e la$yer in arguing for the other client, there is a
violation of the rule.
2nother test of inconsistency of interests is @5/t5/2 t5/ 4/9t4"/ o> 4 "/@ 2/+4t!o" @ou+<
92/?/"t t5/ >u++ <!s542g/ o> t5/ +4@,/2=s <ut, o> u"<!?!</< >!</+!t, 4"< +o,4+t, to t5/
+!/"t o2 !"?!t/ sus9!!o" o> u">4!t5>u+"/ss o2 <ou1+/(</4+!"g !" t5/ 9/2>o204"/ o> t54t
<ut,. <till another test is $hether the la$yer $ould )e called upon in the ne$ relation to use
against a for&er client any confidential infor&ation ac5uired through their connection or previous
e&ploy&ent.
@1#A
@e&phasis oursA
1n the )asis of the attendant facts of the case, $e find su)stantial evidence to support 2tty.
<a)itsanaEs violation of the a)ove rule, as esta)lished )y the follo$ing circu&stances on record6
O"/, his legal services $ere initially engaged )y the co&plainant to protect her interest over a
certain property. The records sho$ that upon the legal advice of 2tty. <a)itsana, the 4eed of
<ale over the property $as prepared and e%ecuted in the co&plainantEs favor.
T@o, 2tty. <a)itsana &et $ith >enaida CaHete to discuss the latterEs legal interest over the
property su)ject of the 4eed of <ale. 2t that point, 2tty. <a)itsana already had 0no$ledge that
>enaida CaHeteEs interest clashed $ith the co&plainantEs interests.
T52//, despite the 0no$ledge of the clashing interests )et$een his t$o clients, 2tty. <a)itsana
accepted the engage&ent fro& >enaida CaHete.
Fou2, 2tty. <a)itsanaEs actual 0no$ledge of the conflicting interests )et$een his t$o clients $as
de&onstrated )y his o$n actions6 ;'%"&, he filed a case against the co&plainant in )ehalf of
>enaida CaHete8 "$#(n, he i&pleaded the co&plainant as the defendant in the case8 and &0'%,
the case he filed $as for the annul&ent of the 4eed of <ale that he had previously prepared and
e%ecuted for the co&plainant.
Cy his acts, not only did 2tty. <a)itsana agree to represent one client against another client in
the sa&e action8 he also accepted a ne$ engage&ent that entailed hi& to contend and oppose
the interest of his other client in a property in $hich his legal services had )een previously
retained.
To )e sure, Rule 1;.#-, Canon 1; of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility provides an
e%ception to the a)ove prohi)ition. Do$ever, $e find no reason to apply the e%ception due to
2tty. <a)itsanaEs failure to co&ply $ith the re5uire&ents set forth under the rule. 2tty. <a)itsana
did not &a0e a full disclosure of facts to the co&plainant and to >enaida CaHete )efore he
accepted the ne$ engage&ent $ith >enaida CaHete. The records li0e$ise sho$ that although
2tty. <a)itsana $rote a letter to the co&plainant infor&ing her of >enaida CaHeteEs adverse
clai& to the property covered )y the 4eed of <ale and, urging her to settle the adverse clai&8
2tty. <a)itsana ho$ever did not disclose to the co&plainant that he $as also )eing engaged as
counsel )y >enaida CaHete.
@11A
Moreover, the records sho$ that 2tty. <a)itsana failed to o)tain
the $ritten consent of his t$o clients, as re5uired )y Rule 1;.#-, Canon 1; of the Code of
7rofessional Responsi)ility.
2ccordingly, $e find R as the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors did R 2tty. <a)itsana guilty of
&isconduct for representing conflicting interests. Be li0e$ise agree $ith the penalty of
suspension for one *1+ year fro& the practice of la$ reco&&ended )y the 3C7 Coard of
Iovernors. This penalty is consistent $ith e%isting jurisprudence on the ad&inistrative offense of
representing conflicting interests.
@1/A
Be note that 2tty. <a)itsana ta0es e%ception to the 3C7 reco&&endation on the ground that the
charge in the co&plaint $as only for his alleged disclosure of confidential infor&ation, not for
representation of conflicting interests. To 2tty. <a)itsana, finding hi& lia)le for the latter offense
is a violation of his due process rights since he only ans$ered the designated charge.
Be find no violation of 2tty. <a)itsanaEs due process rights. 2lthough there $as indeed a
specific charge in the co&plaint, $e are not un&indful that the co&plaint itself contained
allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule on the prohi)ition against
representing conflicting interests. 2s stated in paragraph 8 of the co&plaint6
2tty. <a)itsana, (r. accepted the co&&ission as a :a$yer of >9N2342 C2N9(2, no$ >enaida
CaHete, to recover lands fro& Co&plainant, including this land $here la$yer 2tty. <a)itsana, (r.
has advised his client @co&plainantA to e%ecute the second sale@.A
3nterestingly, 2tty. <a)itsana even ad&itted these allegations in his ans$er.
@1-A
De also averred in
his 2ns$er that6
6). Cecause the defendantto)e in the co&plaint *Civil Case No. C1#6#+ that he $ould file on
)ehalf of >enaida CanejaCaHete $as his for&er client *herein co&plainant+, respondent as0ed
@theA per&ission of Mrs. CaHete *$hich she granted+ that he $ould first $rite a letter *2nne% F"G+
to the co&plainant proposing to settle the case a&ica)ly )et$een the& )ut co&plainant ignored
it. Neither did she o)ject to respondentEs handling the case in )ehalf of Mrs. CaHete on the
ground she is no$ invo0ing in her instant co&plaint. <o respondent felt free to file the co&plaint
against her.
@1"A
Be have consistently held that the essence of due process is si&ply the opportunity to )e
infor&ed of the charge against oneself and to )e heard or, as applied to ad&inistrative
proceedings, the opportunity to e%plain oneEs side or the opportunity to see0 a reconsideration of
the action or ruling co&plained of.
@1;A
These opportunities $ere all afforded to 2tty. <a)itsana, as
sho$n )y the a)ove circu&stances.
2ll told, disciplinary proceedings against la$yers are "!' >$n$%'".
@16A
3n the e%ercise of its
disciplinary po$ers, the Court &erely calls upon a &e&)er of the Car to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court $ith the end in vie$ of preserving the purity of the legal
profession. Be li0e$ise ai& to ensure the proper and honest ad&inistration of justice )y purging
the profession of &e&)ers $ho, )y their &isconduct, have proven the&selves no longer $orthy
to )e entrusted $ith the duties and responsi)ilities of an attorney.
@1!A
This is all that $e did in this
case. <ignificantly, $e did this to a degree very &uch lesser than $hat the po$ers of this Court
allo$s it to do in ter&s of the i&posa)le penalty. 3n this sense, $e have already )een lenient
to$ards respondent la$yer.
8HEREFORE, pre&ises considered, the Court resolves to ADO:T the findings and
reco&&endations of the Co&&ission on Car 4iscipline of the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines.
2tty. Cle&encio C. <a)itsana, (r. is foundG6I&T' of &isconduct for representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 1;.#-, Canon 1; of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility. De is
here)y S6S:ENDED for one *1+ year fro& the practice of la$.
2tty. <a)itsana is DIRE#TED to infor& the Court of the date of his receipt of this 4ecision so
that $e can deter&ine the rec0oning point $hen his suspension shall ta0e effect.
SO ORDERED. P$%a*&a,
A
P$%$2, S$%$n(, and R$3$", JJ., concur.
EN 3AN#
[ A.#. No. 9*7-, August 1-, 2*12 ]
GRACE M. ANACTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION,
RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
DE& #ASTI&&O, $.%
.@TAhe purpose of dis)ar&ent is to protect the courts and the pu)lic fro& the &isconduct of the
officers of the court and to ensure the ad&inistration of justice )y re5uiring that those $ho
e%ercise this i&portant function shall )e co&petent, honora)le and trust$orthy &en in $ho&
courts and clients &ay repose confidence..
@1A
3n a Co&plaint
@/A
for dis)ar&ent filed on 2ugust //, /##! $ith the 3ntegrated Car of the
7hilippines Co&&ittee on Car 4iscipline *3C7CC4+, co&plainant Irace M. 2nacta
*co&plainant+ prays for the dis)ar&ent of respondent 2tty. 9duardo 4. Resurreccion
*respondent+ for Fgross &isconduct, deceit and &alpractice.G
@-A
Records sho$ that on Nove&)er 1;, /##", co&plainant engaged the services of respondent to
file on her )ehalf a petition for annul&ent of &arriage )efore the Regional Trial Court *RTC+ of
Uue?on City, for $hich she paid respondent 7"/,###.##.
@"A
3n 4ece&)er /##", respondent presented to the co&plainant a supposed copy of a 7etition for
2nnul&ent of Marriage
@;A
$hich )ore the sta&ped receipt dated 4ece&)er 8, /##" of the RTC,
as $ell as its doc0et nu&)er, Civil Case No. #"/;1"1.
'ro& then on, co&plainant did not hear fro& respondent or receive any notice fro& the trial
court relative to the said petition. This pro&pted her to &a0e in5uiries $ith the 1ffice of the Cler0
of Court of the RTC of Uue?on City *1CCRTC+. To her surprise and dis&ay, she discovered that
no petition for annul&ent doc0eted as Civil Case No. #"/;1"1 $as ever filed )efore the said
court.
@6A
Thus, co&plainant ter&inated the services of respondent Ffor loss of trust and
confidenceG
@!A
and re5uested the 1CCRTC to refuse any )elated atte&pt on the part of
respondent to file a petition for annul&ent of &arriage on her )ehalf.
@8A
1n (uly -#, /##!, co&plainant, through her ne$ counsel, $rote a letter
@9A
to the respondent
de&anding for an e%planation as to ho$ respondent intended to inde&nify the co&plainant for
da&ages she had suffered due to respondentEs deceitful acts. Respondent has not replied
thereto. Dence, co&plainant filed )efore the 3C7 a verified co&plaint praying that respondent )e
dis)arred.
3n an 1rder
@1#A
dated 2ugust //, /##!, the 4irector for Car 4iscipline of the 3C7, 2tty. 2licia 2.
Risos=idal, re5uired the respondent to su)&it his ans$er to the co&plaint $ithin 1; days fro&
notice. Do$ever, respondent did not heed said directive. Dence, co&plainant filed Motions to
4eclare Respondent in 4efault and Dear the Case 9%7arte.
@11A
The 3nvestigating Co&&issioner,
Ro&ualdo 2. 4in, (r., held in a)eyance the resolution of the a)ove &otions and instead set the
co&plaint for Mandatory Conference on 1cto)er 6, /##8.
@1/A
1n the said date, ho$ever, only the
co&plainant and her counsel appeared. 2ccordingly, in an 1rder
@1-A
dated 1cto)er 6, /##8, the
3nvestigating Co&&issioner dee&ed respondent to have $aived the filing of an ans$er8 noted
co&plainantEs &otion to declare respondent in default8 and gave the co&plainant 1# days fro&
notice $ithin $hich to file her verified position paper, after $hich the case shall )e dee&ed
su)&itted for resolution.
Co&plainant filed her verified 7osition 7aper
@1"A
on 1cto)er 1;, /##8.
3n his Report and Reco&&endation
@1;A
dated 4ece&)er 8, /##8, the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner
found clear and convincing evidence that respondent is guilty of deceit and dishonesty $hen he
&isrepresented having filed the petition for annul&ent of &arriage after receipt of 7"/,###.##
$hen in fact no such petition $as filed. De thus reco&&ended that respondent )e suspended
fro& the practice of la$ for a period of t$o years and to rei&)urseNreturn to the co&plainant the
a&ount of 7"/,###.##.
3n a Resolution
@16A
dated 2ugust /8, /#1#, the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors adopted and approved the
findings of the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner )ut &odified the reco&&ended penalty of
suspension fro& the practice of la$ fro& t$o years to four years and ordered respondent to
return to the co&plainant the a&ount of 7"/,###.##, other$ise his suspension $ill continue until
he returns the su& involved.
Ou2 Ru+!"g
Be adopt the findings and reco&&endation of the 3C7.
3n Na%a> .. A&&3. Na%a>
@1!A
this Court held that F@tAhe )urden of proof rests upon the co&plainant,
and the Court $ill e%ercise its disciplinary po$er only if she esta)lishes her case )y clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence.G
3n this case, co&plainant su)&itted the follo$ing docu&ents to prove her allegations6 *1+ the
<ervice 2gree&ent dated Nove&)er 1;, /##" to prove the e%istence of attorneyclient
relationship )et$een the parties8 */+ the 7etition for 2nnul&ent of Marriage
@18A
supposedly filed )y
respondent on 4ece&)er 8, /##" $ith the RTC of Uue?on City and doc0eted as Civil Case No.
#"/;1"18 *-+ the Certification issued )y the 2ssistant Cler0 of Court of the RTC of Uue?on City
sho$ing that Fno 7etition for 2nnul&ent of Marriage $ith Civil Case No. U#"/;1"1 $as filed on
4ece&)er 8, /##"G8 *"+ the letter dated March 6, /##; of the co&plainant to the respondent
infor&ing the latter that she is ter&inating his legal services effective i&&ediately8 *;+ the letter
of co&plainant to the Cler0 of Court of the RTC of Uue?on City $herein she re5uested that Fany
)elated atte&pt )y &y for&er la$yer 2tty. Resurreccion to file any 7etition for 2nnul&ent % % %
)e refused acceptanceG8 and, *6+ the letter dated (uly -#, /##! of co&plainantEs ne$ counsel
de&anding for an e%planation as to ho$ respondent intended to inde&nify the co&plainant for
da&ages she had suffered )y reason of respondentEs fraudulent &isrepresentations.
@19A
3n the face of such a serious charge, the respondent has chosen to re&ain silent.
Thus, $e find the confluence of the evidence su)&itted )y the co&plainant to have clearly,
convincingly and satisfactorily sho$n that indeed the respondent has authored this
reprehensi)le act. Respondent co&&itted deceitful and dishonest acts )y &isrepresenting that
he had already filed a petition for annul&ent on )ehalf of the co&plainant and poc0eting the
a&ount of 7"/,###.##. De even $ent to the e%tent of presenting to the co&plainant a supposed
copy of the petition duly filed $ith the court. 2fter he $as found out, he &ade hi&self scarce. De
ignored all co&&unications sent to hi& )y the co&plainant. 2fter the dis)ar&ent co&plaint $as
filed, he failed to file his ans$er despite due notice. De totally disregarded the proceedings
)efore the 3C7 despite receipt of su&&ons. FThe act of respondent in not filing his ans$er and
ignoring the hearings set )y the 3nvestigating Co&&ission, despite due notice, e&phasi?ed his
conte&pt for legal proceedings.G
@/#A
Be thus agree $ith the o)servation of the 3C7 3nvestigating Co&&issioner that F@sAuch action of
the respondent is patently deceitful and dishonest, considering further that he received an
a&ount of &oney fro& the co&plainant.G
@/1A
FThe natural instinct of &an i&pels hi& to resist an
unfounded clai& or i&putation and defend hi&self. 3t is totally against our hu&an nature to just
re&ain reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Dence, silence in such cases is
al&ost al$ays construed as i&plied ad&ission of the truth thereof.G
@//A
2s early as In R$C S(&&(,
@/-A
this Court held that6
1ne of the 5ualifications re5uired of a candidate for ad&ission to the )ar is the possession of
good &oral character, and, $hen one $ho has already )een ad&itted to the )ar clearly sho$s,
)y a series of acts, that he does not follo$ such &oral principles as should govern the conduct of
an upright person, and that, in his dealings $ith his clients and $ith the courts, he disregards the
rule of professional ethics re5uired to )e o)served )y every attorney, it is the duty of the court,
as guardian of the interests of society, as $ell as of the preservation of the ideal standard of
professional conduct, to &a0e use of its po$ers to deprive hi& of his professional attri)utes
$hich he so un$orthily a)used.
3n addition, Rule 1.#1 of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility states that F@aA la$yer shall not
engage in unla$ful, dishonest, i&&oral or deceitful conduct.G FThe Code e%acts fro& la$yers not
only a fir& respect for la$, legal processes )ut also &andates the ut&ost degree of fidelity and
good faith in dealing $ith clients and the &oneys entrusted to the& pursuant to their fiduciary
relationship.G
@/"A
7ursuant to <ection /!, Rule 1-8 of the Rules of Court, respondent &ay either )e dis)arred or
suspended for co&&itting deceitful and dishonest acts. Thus6
<9C. /!. D'"=a%m$n& (% "!":$n"'(n (; a&&(%n$3" =3 S!:%$m$ C(!%&@ >%(!n" &0$%$;(%. 2
&e&)er of the )ar 04,)e <!s1422/< or sus9/"</< fro& his office as attorney )y the <upre&e
Court for any deceit, &alpractice, or other gross &isconduct in such office, grossly i&&oral
conduct, or )y reason of his conviction of a cri&e involving &oral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath $hich he is re5uired to ta0e )efore ad&ission to practice, or for a $ilful diso)edience of
any la$ful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or $ilfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case $ithout authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at la$ for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or )ro0ers, constitutes &alpractice. @9&phasis
supplied.A
3t is thus clear fro& the foregoing provision that in any of the follo$ing circu&stances, to $it6
*1+ $#$'&@ */+ma*:%a#&'#$8 *-+ >%("" m'"#(n!#&8 *"+ >%(""*3 'mm(%a* #(n!#&8 /D1 #(n.'#&'(n (; a
#%'m$ 'n.(*.'n> m(%a* &!%:'&!$@ /E1 .'(*a&'(n (; &0$ *a<3$%F" (a&0@ /G1 <'*;!* '"(=$'$n#$ (; an3
*a<;!* (%$% (; a "!:$%'(% #(!%&@ (% /H1 #(%%!:&*3 (% <'*;!**3 a::$a%'n> a" an a&&(%n$3 ;(% a :a%&3 &(
a #a"$ <'&0(!& a!&0(%'&3 &( ( "(@ the Court is vested $ith the authority and discretion to i&pose
either the e%tre&e penalty of dis)ar&ent or &ere suspension. Certainly, the Court is not placed
in a straitjac0et as regards the penalty to )e i&posed. There is no ironclad rule that dis)ar&ent
&ust i&&ediately follo$ upon a finding of deceit or gross &isconduct. The Court is not
&andated to auto&atically i&pose the e%tre&e penalty of dis)ar&ent. 3t is allo$ed )y la$ to
e%ercise its discretion either to dis)ar or just suspend the erring la$yer )ased on its appreciation
of the facts and circu&stances of the case.
Be e%a&ined the records of the case and assessed the evidence presented )y the co&plainant.
2fter such e%a&ination and assess&ent, $e are convinced )eyond dou)t that respondent
should only )e &eted the penalty of fouryear suspension as properly reco&&ended )y the 3C7
Coard of Iovernors. 3n the e%ercise of our discretion, $e are un5uestiona)ly certain that the
fouryear suspension suffices and co&&ensura)le to the infractions he co&&itted. 2s $ill )e
pointed out later, there have )een cases $ith &ore or less the sa&e factual setting as in the
instant case $here the Court also i&posed the penalty of suspension and not dis)ar&ent.
Be have gone over jurisprudential rulings $here the respondents $ere found guilty of grave
&isconduct andNor dishonesty and $e o)serve that the Court either dis)ars or suspends the&
)ased on its collective appreciation of attendant circu&stances and in the e%ercise of its sound
discretion.
3n Ga%#'a .. A&&3. Man!$*,
@/;A
the Court found respondent therein to have co&&itted dishonesty
and a)used the confidence
@/6A
of his client for failing to file the eject&ent suit despite as0ing for
and receiving fro& the co&plainant the &oney intended as filing fees. 3n his )id for e%oneration,
therein respondent atte&pted to &islead the Court )y clai&ing that he has not yet received the
registry return card of the notice to vacate hence his failure to file the eject&ent suit. Do$ever,
the records indu)ita)ly sho$ed that he had already received the sa&e. Moreover, therein
respondent li0e$ise refused to return the &onies he received fro& the co&plainant despite
repeated de&ands.
@/!A
The Court thus concluded that therein respondent,s actions constitute
gross &isconduct. Nevertheless, )ased on its appreciation of the evidence, the Court refrained
fro& i&posing the penalty of dis)ar&ent. 3nstead, it i&posed the penalty of suspension fro& the
practice of la$ for a period of si% &onths, ratiocinating thus6
Co&plainant as0s that respondent )e dis)arred. Do$ever, $e find that suspension fro& the
practice of la$ is sufficient to discipline respondent. The supre&e penalty of dis)ar&ent is &eted
out only in clear cases of &isconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the
la$yer as an officer of the court and &e&)er of the )ar. Bhile $e $ill not hesitate to re&ove an
erring attorney fro& the estee&ed )rotherhood of la$yers, $here the evidence calls for it, $e $ill
also not dis)ar hi& $here a lesser penalty $ill suffice to acco&plish the desired end. 3n this
case, $e find suspension to )e sufficient sanction against respondent. <uspension, $e &ay add,
is not pri&arily intended as punish&ent, )ut as a &eans to protect the pu)lic and the legal
profession.
@/8A
3n C$n'2a .. R!='a,
@/9A
respondent therein $as alleged to have &isrepresented having already
filed in court the necessary co&plaint )y sho$ing the copy of the co&plaint sta&ped FreceivedG
$ith a doc0et nu&)er thereon.
@-#A
Do$ever, upon verification $ith the appropriate court, it $as
discovered that none $as filed.
@-1A
3t $as also noted that respondent therein pro&pted the
co&plainant to )orro$ &oney fro& a third party just to )e a)le to pay her attorney,s fees. Bhen
the case reached this Court, it i&posed the penalty of suspension and not dis)ar&ent. 3n so
doing, the Court lent &ore credence to the e%planation of the respondent that the case $as
F$ithdra$nG after it had )een sta&ped FreceivedG )y the court.
3n R(a .. M(%$n(,
@-/A
the Court found respondent therein guilty of gross &isconduct and
dishonesty. De issued a )ogus Certificate of :and 1ccupancy to the co&plainant
@--A
and refused
to return the a&ount paid )y the co&plainant.
@-"A
'or said infractions, the Court &eted hi& $ith
the penalty of suspension fro& the practice of la$ for t$o years.
@-;A
3n Ba%#$na" .. A*.$%(,
@-6A
respondent failed to deposit in court the a&ount of 7-##,###.## $hich
he received fro& his client supposedly as rede&ption price. De also failed to return the a&ount
despite repeated de&ands. De $as suspended for t$o years.
3n Sma** .. Bana%$"
@-!A
respondent received 78#,###.## fro& co&plainant for his legal services
and as filing fees. De ho$ever failed to file the necessary co&plaint and $as never heard fro&
again. De $as thus suspended fro& the practice of la$ for t$o years.
3n J!>$ An>$*$" .. A&&3. U3, J%.,
@-8A
therein respondent failed to pro&ptly report that he received
&oney on )ehalf of his client. Do$ever, for lac0 of evidence of &isappropriation, he $as only
suspended and not dis)arred.
3n G(na&( .. A&&3. Aa2a,
@-9A
2tty. 2da?a as0ed &oney fro& his client supposedly as filing fees
$hen in fact no such filing fees are needed or due. Borse, he issued a falsified Fofficial receiptG
as proof of pay&ent. 'inally, $hen he $as discovered, he failed to heed his client,s de&and to
return the a&ount. 'or such infractions, 2tty. 2da?a $as suspended for a period of si% &onths.
3n A5!'n( .. A&&3. Ba%#$*(na,
@"#A
2tty. Carcelona deli)erately &isrepresented to his client that he
$as a)le to successfully facilitate the restructuring of his clientEs loan $ith a )an0 through his
FconnectionG. 1n the )asis of said false pretenses, he collected 76#,###.## fro& his client. Dis
client eventually )eca&e a$are of such &isrepresentations $hen his property $as foreclosed )y
the )an0. 2tty. Carcelona $as thus charged $ith &isconduct and for $hich he $as suspended
)y the Court for a period of si% &onths.
The foregoing cases illustrate that the Court is not )ound to i&pose the penalty of dis)ar&ent in
cases of gross &isconduct andNor dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in the e%ercise of
its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension $ould )e &ore co&&ensurate.
@"1A
F4is)ar&ent,
jurisprudence teaches, should not )e decreed $here any punish&ent less severe, such as
repri&and, suspension, or fine, $ould acco&plish the end desired. This is as it should )e
considering the conse5uence of dis)ar&ent on the econo&ic life and honor of the erring
person.G
@"/A
3n this case, $e )elieve that the penalty of suspension of four years $ill provide 2tty.
Resurreccion F$ith enough ti&e to ponder on and cleanse hi&self of his &isconduct.G
@"-A
FBhile
$e $ill not hesitate to re&ove an erring attorney fro& the estee&ed )rotherhood of la$yers,
$here the evidence calls for it, $e $ill also not dis)ar hi& $here a lesser penalty $ill suffice to
acco&plish the desired end.G
@""A
Be note that there is no &ention in the records of any previous
or si&ilar ad&inistrative case filed against herein respondent.
2nent the issue of $hether respondent should )e directed to return the a&ount of 7"/,###.## he
received fro& the co&plainant, $e note that the rulings of this Court in this &atter have )een
diverse. 1n one hand, there are cases $here this Court directed respondents to return the
&oney they received fro& the co&plainants. 1n the other hand, there are also cases $here this
Court refrained fro& venturing into this &atter on the ground that the sa&e is not $ithin the
a&)it of its disciplinary authority as the only issue in ad&inistrative cases is the fitness of the
la$yer to re&ain a &e&)er of the )ar.
No$ is the &ost opportune ti&e to har&oni?e the Court,s ruling on this &atter. Thus, it is
i&perative to first deter&ine $hether the &atter falls $ithin the disciplinary authority of the Court
or $hether the &atter is a proper su)ject of judicial action against la$yers. 3f the &atter involves
violations of the la$yerEs oath and code of conduct, then it falls $ithin the CourtEs disciplinary
authority. Do$ever, if the &atter arose fro& acts $hich carry civil or cri&inal lia)ility, and $hich
do not directly re5uire an in5uiry into the &oral fitness of the la$yer, then the &atter $ould )e a
proper su)ject of a judicial action $hich is understanda)ly outside the purvie$ of the CourtEs
disciplinary authority. Thus, $e hold that $hen the &atter su)ject of the in5uiry pertains to the
&ental and &oral fitness of the respondent to re&ain as &e&)er of the legal fraternity, the issue
of $hether the respondent )e directed to return the a&ount received fro& his client shall )e
dee&ed $ithin the CourtEs disciplinary authority.
3n this case, respondent received the a&ount of 7"/,###.## supposedly as pay&ent for his legal
services and as filing fees. Canon 16 of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility provides6
C2N1N 16 P 2 :2BM9R <D2:: D1:4 3N TRJ<T 2:: M1N9M< 2N4 7R179RT39< 1' D3<
C:39NT TD2T M2M C1M9 3NT1 D3< 71<<9<<31N.
Rule 16.#1 P 2 la$yer shall account for all &oney or property collected or received for or fro&
the client.
% % % %
Rule 16.#- P 2 la$yer shall deliver the funds and property of his client $hen due or upon
de&and. % % %
3n this case, it is thus clear that respondent violated his la$yerEs oath and code of conduct $hen
he $ithheld the a&ount of 7"/,###.## despite his failure to render the necessary legal services
and after co&plainant de&anded its return. De &ust therefore )e directed to return the sa&e.
'inally, $e e&phasi?e that .@tAhe o)ject of a dis)ar&ent proceeding is not so &uch to punish the
individual attorney hi&self as to safeguard the ad&inistration of justice )y protecting the court
and the pu)lic fro& the &isconduct of officers of the court, and to re&ove fro& the profession of
la$ persons $hose disregard for their oath of office @hasA proved the& unfit to continue
discharging the trust reposed in the& as &e&)ers of the )ar..
@";A
8HEREFORE, respondent 2tty. 9duardo 4. Resurreccion is ordered <J<79N494 fro& the
practice of la$ for four years. De is also 43R9CT94 to return to the co&plainant the a&ount of
7"/,###.## $ithin thirty *-#+ days fro& the pro&ulgation of this 4ecision.
:et a copy of this 4ecision )e furnished the 1ffice of the Car Confidant and the 3ntegrated Car of
the 7hilippines for their infor&ation and guidance. The Court 2d&inistrator is directed to
circulate this 4ecision to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Ca%:'(, V$*a"#(, J%., L$(na%(-D$ Ca"&%(, B%'(n, P$%a*&a, B$%"am'n, A=a, V'**a%ama, J%., P$%$2,
M$n(2a, andR$3$", JJ., concur.
S$%$n(, J., on official leave.
P$%*a"-B$%na=$, J., on leave.
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.#.No. 915- AFo20/2+, #3D No. *7(1965B, .425 19, 2*12 ]
AURORA D. CERDAN, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. CARLO GOME,, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
.ENDO7A, $.%
Cefore the Court is the undated Resolution
@1A
of the Coard of Iovernors of the 3ntegrated Car of
the 7hilippines *IBP+ finding 2tty. Carlo Io&e? *A&&3. G(m$2+ lia)le for violating Canon 16 of the
Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility and reco&&ending that he )e suspended fro& the practice
of la$ for si% *6+ &onths.
The case ste&&ed fro& the affidavitco&plaint
@/A
of 2urora 4. Cerdan *#(m:*a'nan&+, filed )efore
the Co&&ittee on Car 4iscipline of the 3C7 on 2pril 16, /##!. The co&plaint alleged that
co&plainant and $ido$er Cenja&in Rufino *R!;'n(+ lived together as hus)and and $ife8 that
during their coha)itation, they purchased several real properties8 that they &aintained savings
accounts at 'irst Consolidated Can0 *FCB+, at the Uue?on and Narra )ranches in 7ala$an, all of
$hich $ere in the na&e of Rufino8 that $hen Rufino died on 4ece&)er /8, /##", co&plainant
sought the legal advice of 2tty. Io&e? as to $hat to do $ith the properties left )y Rufino8 and
that she paid 2tty. Io&e? attorney,s fees in the a&ount of 71;/,###.## )ut only the a&ount of
71##,###.## $as reflected in the receipt.
Co&plainant clai&ed that she authori?ed 2tty. Io&e?, thru a special po$er of attorney *SPA+, to
settle Rufino,s savings account in 'CCUue?on )ranch8 that the original agree&ent of a ;#;#
sharing )et$een co&plainant and the children of Rufino, as proposed )y the 'CC counsel, $as
replaced )y the Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent entered into )y 2tty. Io&e?, $herein the heirs of
Rufino got 6#T of the share $hile she only received "#T8 that 2tty. Io&e? included in the
Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent the savings account in 'CCNarra Cranch $hen the scope of the <72
$as only the account in 'CCUue?on )ranch8 that 2tty. Io&e? too0 her )an0 )oo0 for the 'CC
account in Narra Cranch containing deposits in the a&ount of &ore or less 716;,###.## and
never returned it to her8 and that 2tty. Io&e? $ithdre$ fro& her 'CC accounts and thereafter
gave the a&ount of 7/9#,###.## and uttered, IITO NA LAHATANG PERA MO ATANG SA AKIN
NAKUHA KO NA.I
Co&plainant also narrated that so&eti&e in /###, 2tty. Io&e? $as her counsel in a case
against a certain Ro&eo Necio *N$#'(+ and paid hi& attorney,s fees and judicial fee in the
a&ount of 73 ;,###.##, and 78,###.##, respectively8 that the parties agreed to settle a&ica)ly
and decided that 2tty. Io&e? $ould collect fro& Necio the a&ount agreed upon8 and that as of
the filing of the co&plaint, 2tty. Io&e? has yet to re&it to co&plainant the a&ount of
71/,###.##.
1n 2pril 16, /##!, the 3C7 re5uired 2tty. Io&e? to file his ans$er.
@-A
3n his 2ns$er,
@"A
2tty. Io&e? ad&itted that Rufino engaged his legal services in various cases.
De, ho$ever, denied the accusations stated in the co&plaintaffidavit filed )y co&plainant.
2tty. Io&e? averred that he $as not a$are that Rufino and co&plainant $ere not legally
&arried )ecause they represented the&selves as hus)and and $ife so the cases filed in court
$ere under the na&es of spouses Cenja&in and 2urora Rufino and that he only learned of said
fact upon the death of Rufino in 4ece&)er /##". 2tty. Io&e? clai&ed that $hen he had learned
that co&plainant $as not the legal $ife, he e%erted earnest effort to locate the surviving heirs of
Rufino and su)stitute the& in the cases filed in court8 that he infor&ed co&plainant of the
conse5uences of her status and relationship $ith the late Rufino including her possi)le denial of
any share fro& his estate8 and that he advised co&plainant that he $ould &a0e e%tra effort to
persuade the legiti&ate heirs of Rufino to discuss a possi)le settle&ent and share in the estate
or as0 for co&passion if she $ould )e denied her share in the estate.
Bith respect to the uncollected a&ounts, 2tty. Io&e? denied the sa&e and said that all the
docu&ents relating to the inde)tedness $ere in the na&e of Rufino and that he could not do
anything if the legiti&ate heirs of Rufino collected the sa&e fro& the de)tors.
2s to the savings account in 'CCUue?on )ranch, 2tty. Io&e? e%plained that said account $as
in the na&e of Rufino8 that he negotiated $ith the legiti&ate heirs of Rufino for the share of the
co&plainant8 and that the proceeds thereof, in the a&ount of 7""/,;"!.88, $ere properly turned
over to co&plainant as evidenced )y an ac0no$ledg&ent receipt.
Thereafter, the Co&&ission of Car 4iscipline through Co&&issioner (ose 4ela Ra&a, (r.
*C(mm'""'(n$% D$*a Rama+ conducted a &andatory conference and thereafter re5uired the
parties to su)&it their verified position papers. Jpon filing of their respective position papers, the
case $as su)&itted for resolution.
3n his Report and Reco&&endation,
@;A
Co&&issioner 4ela Ra&a $rote his findings as follo$s6
That it appears on record that co&plainant granted the respondent a <pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney
the specific po$ers of $hich are as follo$s6
1. To enter into a&ica)le settle&ent of &y account $ith the 'irst Consolidated
Can0, Uue?on Cranch $ith <avings 2ccount No. -##/#1#1#/##. *Jnderlining supplied+
/. To agree to such &atters as they &ay dee& fit and proper to )e done in connection
$ith the said savings account
-. To $ithdra$ the said a&ount as agreed on the settle&ent, receive and sign for and
in &y )ehalf.
The <pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney appears to have )een signed and notari?ed on 'e)ruary /8,
/##8 at 7uerto 7rincesa City.
3t appears further that as alleged, the co&plainant &aintains t$o accounts at 'irst Consolidated
Can0. 1ne is in Uue?on, 7ala$an Cranch in the a&ount of 7""/,;"!.88. The other account
)eing &aintained at 'CC Narra Cranch contains an a&ount e5uivalent to 716;,###.##, &ore or
less.
2ccording to the co&plainant, she did not authori?e the respondent to enter into a settle&ent
$ith respect to the properties left )y Cenja&in Rufino.
S%%%
To )egin $ith, respondent $as given a <pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney $ith respect to 'CC Uue?on
account. That as far as the respondent can recall the account $ith 'CC Uue?on Cranch had 7i
&illion, &ore or less.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M26 2t that ti&e, ho$ &uch is the a&ount of deposit in 'CC Uue?onL
2tty. Io&e?6 3 )elieve, Mour Donor, its 7hp 1&illion. C1MM. 49 :2 R2M26 Do$ &uch is the
Narra CranchL
2tty. Io&e?6 3 a& not a$are, Mour Donor. 3n fact, 3 have not even seen the )an0 account
pass)oo0.
*T<N pages -#-1, <epte&)er !, /##!+
Cased on the Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent &ar0ed as 2nne% .',. $ith respect to Uue?on Cranch
$ith account No. -#-##/#1#1#/o, the sa&e shall )e divided as follo$s6 6# percent goes to
the heirs of Cenja&in Rufino, (r. and "# percent goes to 2urora Cerdan $ho $as then presented
)y the respondent. This ti&e, it $as 2tty. Io&e? $ho signed the said agree&ent )y virtue of the
<pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney dated 'e)ruary /8, /##;.
Bhile it is clear that in the Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent $here the co&plainant $as supposed to
receive "#T refers to 'CC Uue?on Cranch, it cannot also )e denied that in the sa&e
Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent it spea0s of 'CC Narra Cranch $hich, as ad&itted )y the respondent,
he has no authority to )ind the co&plainant.
Cut in the said Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent, it cannot )e denied that the respondent entered into an
agree&ent $ith respect to 'CC Narra Cranch. 7ortion of the agree&ent reads as follo$s6
S%%%
The first 5uestion is, $hen the respondent entered into a Co&pro&ise 2gree&ent on March 1,
/##;, $as he acting $ithin the po$ers granted to hi& in the <pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney.
The undersigned Co&&issioner )elieves that the respondent acted )eyond the po$ers granted
to hi& )y virtue of the <pecial 7o$er of 2ttorney.
3t is very specific that the respondent $as only authori?ed to enter into an a&ica)le settle&ent
$ith respect to 'CC Uue?on Cranch and not $ith the account in 'CC Narra Cranch.
S%%%
The respondent, despite the fact that he $as not ar&ed $ith a particular docu&ent authori?ing
hi& to enter into an agree&ent $ith respect to Narra account, entered and signed a co&pro&ise
agree&ent to the prejudice and surprise of his client. 3n effect, he forfeited the la$ful share of his
client $ith respect to 'CC Narra Cranch.
S%%%
2ccording to the co&plainant, the a&ount of cash that $as given to the respondent a&ounted to
71;/,###.## as attorney,s fees. The respondent got the &oney at her house in Uue?on,
7ala$an and the follo$ing $ee0, the co&plainant $ent to the office of the respondent at 7uerto
7rincesa to get receipt of the 71;/,###.##. 3t $as at this point $hen the respondent allegedly
stated that he only received 71##,###.## and for this reason, an 2c0no$ledge&ent Receipt
*anne% .C.+ $as issued )y the la$ office of the respondent.
Respondent on the other hand, during the preli&inary conference stated the follo$ing6
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 Bhat 3 a& as0ing you is did you receive 7hp1##,###.## fro& the
sendees rendered fro& Mrs. CerdanL
2tty. Io&e?6 Mour Donor, please. That is the reason $hy 3 li0e$ise fired out &y secretary.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 Bhy, did you not receive 7hp 1##,###.##L
2tty. Io&e?6 3 deny that 3 received 7hp1##,###.##, Mour Donor.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 <o you are telling us that it $as your secretary $ho received the
71##,###.##.
2tty. Io&e?6 7ro)a)ly, Mour Donor.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 4id you file any action against your secretaryL
2tty. Io&e?6 3 cannot locate her any&ore.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 Mou 0no$ $hat to do, you are a la$yer. 2nd did you file any civil
caseL
2tty. Io&e?6 None, Mour Donor )ecause the fa&ily $ent to &y office as0ing for co&passion.
*T<N pages 1#!1#9, 1cto)er ;, /##!+
Bhat pu??les the undersigned Co&&issioner is the co&plainant even stated that she did not
give 71##,###.## to the secretary.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 Ma,a& Cerdan, $hen you $ent to the office of 2tty. Io&e?, did you
give 71##,###.## to the secretaryL
Mrs. Cerdan6 No.
*T<N 7age 11#, 1cto)er ;, /##!+
'urther, Mrs. Cerdan did not pro&ise anything to 2tty. Io&e? )y of $ay of co&pensation. The
co&plaint stated the follo$ing6
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 10ay. :ili$anagin 0o lang para sa 0apa0anan ng lahat, &eron po )a
0ayong ipinanga0o na&an 0ay 2tty. Io&e? na 0ung &aiaayos niya ang usaping ito ay
&ag0a0aroon siya ng attorney,s feesL
Mrs. Cerdan6 Bala po.
:i0e$ise, on the part of the respondent, he clai&s that he has no agree&ent $ith respect to his
professional fees.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 Do$ a)out you 2tty. Io&e?, any agree&ent $ith co&plainantL
2tty. Io&e?6 None, Mour Donor. 3 volunteer &yself to assist Mrs. Cerdan.
C1MM. 49 :2 R2M2, (R.6 Bithout e%pecting anythingL
2tty. Io&e?6 Mes, Mour Donor, in fact, 3 spent &oney to assist her.
*T<N 7age 111, 1cto)er ;, /##!+
S % % %
2lthough the respondent is denying that he received a co&pensation for the services rendered,
$e cannot deny the fact that his o$n la$ office issued an ac0no$ledge&ent receipt on March 9,
/##; in the a&ount of 7 1##,###.##. 2lthough the respondent is )la&ing the secretary, the
undersigned is not convinced that his la$ office did not receive certain consideration for the
services rendered. Jnless this case is really under the 3C7 :egal 2id 7rogra&. There is nothing
$rong $ith a la$yer receiving reasona)le co&pensation for the services rendered. 3n fact, under
Canon /# of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, a la$yer shall charge only fair and
reasona)le fees. Bhether the la$yer,s sendees $ere solicited or they $ere offered to the client
for his assistance, in as &uch as these services $ere accepted and &ade use of the latter, there
is a tacit and &utual consent as to the rendition of the services, $hich gives rise to the o)ligation
upon the person )enefited )y the services to &a0e co&pensation therefore. :a$yers are thus as
&uch entitled to judicial protection against injustice on the part of their clients as the clients are
against a)uses on the part of the counsel. The duty of the court is not only to see that la$yers
act in a proper and la$ful &anner, and also see that la$yers are paid their just and la$ful fees
*Ca&acho vs. Court of 2ppeals, et. al. I.R. No. 1/!;/#, 'e)ruary 9, /##!, ;1; <CR2 /"/+..
@6A
Co&&issioner 4ela Ra&a found that 2tty. Io&e? violated Canon 16 of the Code of
7rofessional Responsi)ility and reco&&ended that he )e suspended fro& the practice of la$ for
si% *6+ &onths.
1n (une ;, /##6, the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors passed its Resolution
@!A
adopting and approving
the Report and Reco&&endation of the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner.
2tty. Io&e? &oved for reconsideration,
@8A
)ut in its Resolution No. S3S/#11"1; dated (une /6,
/#11, the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors denied his &otion for reconsideration.
The Court agrees $ith the findings of the 3C7.
2 la$yerclient relationship is highly fiduciary in nature and it re5uires a high standard of conduct
and de&ands ut&ost fidelity, candor, fairness, and good faith. 1nce a la$yer agrees to handle a
case, he is re5uired )y the Canons of 7rofessional Responsi)ility to underta0e the tas0 $ith
?eal, care and ut&ost devotion.
@1#A
3n the case at )ench, 2tty. Io&e? failed to o)serve the ut&ost good faith, loyalty, candor, and
fidelity re5uired of an attorney in his dealings $ith co&plainant. 2tty. Io&e? e%ceeded his
authority $hen he entered into a co&pro&ise agree&ent $ith regard to the 'CC account in
Uue?on Cranch, $here he agreed that co&plainant shall receive "# percent of the proceeds
$hile the heirs of Rufino shall get the 6# percent, $hich $as contrary to the original agree&ent
of ;#;# sharing. 2tty. Io&e? li0e$ise acted )eyond the scope of the <72 $hen he included in
the co&pro&ise agree&ent the 'CC account in Narra )ranch $hen it $as issued only $ith
respect to the 'CC account, Uue?on )ranch. Moreover, 2tty. Io&e? entered into a co&pro&ise
agree&ent $ith respect to the other properties of Rufino $ithout authority fro& co&plainant.
'urther&ore, 2tty. Io&e? failed to account for the &oney he received for co&plainant as a
result of the co&pro&ise agree&ent. Borse, he re&itted the a&ount of 7/9#,###.## only, an
a&ount su)stantially less than the share of co&plainant. Records reveal that co&plainant,s
share fro& the 'CC savings accounts a&ounted to 7""/,;"!.88 )ut only 7/9#,###.## $as
re&itted )y 2tty. Io&e? after deducting his share.
This Court $ill not tolerate such acts. 2tty. Io&e? has no right to unilaterally retain his la$yer,s
lien.
@11A
Daving o)tained the funds in the course of his professional e&ploy&ent, 2tty. Io&e? had
the o)ligation to account and deliver such funds to his client $hen they )eca&e due, or upon
de&and. Moreover, there $as no agree&ent )et$een hi& and co&plainant that he could deduct
therefro& his clai&ed attorney,s fees.
The Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility specifically <ection 16, provides6
C2N1N 16 2 la$yer shall hold in trust all &oneys and properties of his client that &ay co&e
into his possession.
Rule 16.#1 2 la$yer shall account for all &oney or property collected or received for or fro&
the client.
S % % %
The fiduciary nature of the relationship )et$een counsel and client i&poses on a la$yer the duty
to account for the &oney or property collected or received for or fro& the client.
@1/A
De is o)liged
to render a pro&pt accounting of all the property and &oney he has collected for his client.
@1-A
:a$yers should al$ays live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as e&)odied in
the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility. 7u)lic confidence in la$ and in la$yers &ay )e eroded
)y the irresponsi)le and i&proper conduct of a &e&)er of the )ar. Thus, every la$yer should
act and co&port hi&self in a &anner that $ould pro&ote pu)lic confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession.
@1"A
The penalty for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility usually ranges
fro& suspension for si% &onths, ; to suspension for one year,
@16A
or t$o years
@1!A
and even
dis)ar&ent
@18A
depending on the a&ount involved and the severity of the la$yer,s &isconduct.
Considering that this is 2tty. Io&e?,s first offense, the penalty of suspension for one *1+ year is
a sufficient sanction.
8HEREFORE, respondent 2tty. Carlo Io&e? is here)y declared G6I&T' of violation of Canon
16 of the C($ (; P%(;$""'(na* R$":(n"'='*'&3 and is <J<79N494 fro& the practice of la$ for a
period of one *1+ year effective upon receipt of this Resolution, $ith a 8ARNING that a
repetition of the sa&e or si&ilar acts $ill )e dealt $ith severely.
:et a copy of this decision )e furnished the Court 2d&inistrator for distri)ution to all courts of the
land, the 3C7, the 1ffice of the Car Confidant, and entered into the personal records of 2tty.
Io&e? as an attorney and as a &e&)er of the 7hilippine Car.
SO ORDERED.
V$*a"#(, J%., /C0a'%:$%"(n1, P$%a*&a, A=a, and P$%*a"-B$%na=$, JJ., concur
SE#OND DIVISION
[ A.#. No. 67)), Oto1/2 1*, 2*12 ]
HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIRE,, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA,
RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
#AR:IO, $.%
T5/ #4s/
This ad&inistrative case arose fro& a co&plaint filed )y Der&inia 7. =oluntadRa&ire?
*co&plainant+ against 2tty. Rosario C. Cautista *respondent+ for violation of Canon 18,
@1A
Rule
18.#/,
@/A
and Rule //.#/
@-A
of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, violation of the la$yerEs
oath, grave &isconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the )est interest of the pu)lic.
T5/ F4ts
3n her 2ffidavitCo&plaint
@"A
dated /9 March /##;, co&plainant alleged that on /; Nove&)er
/##/, she engaged the legal services of respondent to file a co&plaint against co&plainantEs
si)lings for encroach&ent of her right of $ay. 'or his legal services, respondent de&anded
71;,### as acceptance fee, plus 71,### per court appearance. Co&plainant then paid
respondent the 71;,### acceptance fee. 1n /9 May /##-, or si% &onths after she hired
respondent, co&plainant severed the legal services of respondent )ecause respondent failed to
file a co&plaint $ithin a reasona)le period of ti&e as re5uested )y co&plainant. Co&plainant
then retrieved fro& respondent the folder containing the docu&ents and letters pertaining to her
case $hich co&plainant had entrusted to respondent. Co&plainant clai&ed that she $as
dissatisfied $ith the $ay respondent handled her co&plaint considering that during the si%
&onths that elapsed, respondent only sent a letter to the City 9ngineerEs 1ffice in Navotas City
concerning her co&plaint. 1n 8 March /##", co&plainant sent a letter to respondent, reiterating
that she $as ter&inating the services of respondent and that she $as as0ing for the refund of
71",### out of the 71;,### acceptance fee. Co&plainant stated in her letter that due to
respondentEs Ffailure to institute the desired co&plaint on ti&eG against co&plainantEs )rothers
and sisters, co&plainant $as co&pelled to hire the services of another counsel to file the
co&plaint. Respondent failed to refund the 71",###, pro&pting co&plainant to file on 1# May
/##; her co&plaint dated /9 March /##; $ith the 1ffice of the Car Confidant of the <upre&e
Court. Co&plainant charged respondent $ith violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.#/, and Rule //.#/
of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, violation of the la$yerEs oath, grave &isconduct, and
conduct prejudicial to the )est interest of the pu)lic.
3n his defense, respondent alleges that co&plainant initially $anted hi& to file an injunction case
against her si)lings )ut later changed her &ind $hen she $as apprised of the e%penses
involved. Respondent then advised co&plainant that since her case involves fa&ily &e&)ers,
earnest efforts to$ard a co&pro&ise should )e &ade in accordance $ith 2rticle /// of the Civil
Code
@;A
and that since the parties reside in the sa&e )arangay, the case &ust )e referred to the
)arangay in accordance $ith the :ocal Iovern&ent Code. Respondent also suggested filing a
cri&inal action instead of an injunction case. The day after he $as hired )y co&plainant,
respondent $rote a letter to the City 9ngineer of Navotas City pertaining to co&plainantEs case.
Respondent &ade several follo$ ups $ith the City 9ngineerEs 1ffice and even filed a
case
@6A
against the City 9ngineer for nonfeasance under Repu)lic 2ct No. 6!1-.
@!A
Bhen
co&plainant voluntarily $ithdre$ her case fro& respondent on /9 May /##-, co&plainant also
retrieved the folder containing the docu&ents relevant to her case. 3t $as only after al&ost ten
&onths fro& severing respondentEs legal services that co&plainant sent a letter dated 8 March
/##" de&anding the refund of 71",### out of the 71;,### acceptance fee. Respondent e%plains
that the acceptance fee is nonrefunda)le )ecause it covers the ti&e and cost of research &ade
i&&ediately )efore and after acceptance of the case. The acceptance fee also pays for the
office supplies used for the case. Nevertheless, respondent alleges that he did not ignore
co&plainantEs re5uest for a refund. Respondent clai&s that he sent a letter dated 1! March
/##", $hich stated that although it is their la$ fir&Es policy not to entertain re5uests for refund of
acceptance fee, they $ere $illing to grant her a fifty percent *;#T+ discount and for co&plainant
to contact the& for her refund.
@8A
3n fact, respondent stated that he sent te%t &essages to
co&plainantEs la$yer, 2tty. Cartolo&e, signifying respondentEs $illingness to refund the a&ount
of 79,###.
@9A
3n her Reply2ffidavit, co&plainant stated that even )efore she engaged respondentEs legal
services, her case $as already referred to the )arangay for conciliation proceedings. Do$ever,
co&plainantEs si)lings failed to appear $hich resulted in the issuance on 1 (uly /##/ of a
Certification to 'ile 2ction )y the 1ffice of the L!:(n> Ta>a:ama3a:a, 1ffice of the Carangay
Council, Carangay 4aanghari, Navotas.
@1#A
Respondent countered in his 7osition 7aper that
co&plainant did not infor& hi& of the e%istence of the alleged Certification to 'ile 2ction and that
the said certification $as not part of the case folder $hich respondent turned over to co&plainant
$hen his services $as severed.
The case $as referred to the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines *3C7+ for investigation, report and
reco&&endation or decision.
R/9o2t 4"< R/o00/"<4t!o"
o> t5/ #o00!ss!o" o" 342 D!s!9+!"/
The 3nvestigating Co&&issioner found respondent Fguilty of violation of the la$yerEs oath, Canon
18, Rule@sA 18.#- and //.#/ of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, grave &isconduct and
there)y reco&&end that he )e suspended for a period of one *1+ year $ith a stern $arning that
si&ilar acts in the future $ill )e severely dealt $ith.G
@11A
Respondent $as also ordered to refund to
co&plainant the su& of 71",###.
The 3nvestigating Co&&issioner held that respondent has the &oral duty to restitute 71",###
out of the 71;,### acceptance fee considering that, apart fro& sending a letter to the City
9ngineer of Navotas City, respondent did nothing &ore to advance his clientEs cause during the
si% &onths that co&plainant engaged his legal services.
D/!s!o" o> t5/ 3o42< o> Go?/2"o2s o> t5/
I"t/g24t/< 342 o> t5/ :5!+!99!"/s
1n -1 May /##!, the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors passed Resolution No. S=33/##!/-#, adopting
and approving the 3nvestigating Co&&issionerEs Report and Reco&&endation, $ith
&odification, thus6
R9<1:=94 to 2417T and 277R1=9, as it is here)y 2417T94 and 277R1=94, @!t5
0o<!>!4t!o", the Report and Reco&&endation of the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner of the a)ove
entitled case, herein &ade part of this Resolution as 2nne% F2G8 and, finding the
reco&&endation fully supported )y the evidence on record and the applica)le la$s and rules,
and considering RespondentEs dishonesty, negligence in @hisA &andated duty to file a case to
protect @hisA clients cause, 2tty. Rosario Cautista is here)y S6S:ENDED fro& the practice of
la$ for si% *6+ &onths, and R/st!tut!o" of the a&ount of 71",### to co&plainant is li0e$ise
ordered.
@1/A
3n his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent alleged that even )efore co&plainant officially
engaged his legal services on /; Nove&)er /##/, co&plainant already consulted hi& for
several days regarding her case for $hich no consultation fee $as charged. 2 day after
receiving the 71;,### acceptance fee, respondent sent a letterco&plaint to the City 9ngineer of
Navotas City for a possi)le case of violation of the National Cuilding Code. Respondent
reiterated that co&plainant failed to disclose to hi& that a Certification to 'ile 2ction $as already
issued )y the 1ffice of the L!:(n> Ta>a:ama3a:a.
3n its /8 1cto)er /#11 Resolution No. SS/#111"-, the Coard of Iovernors of the 3C7 partially
granted respondentEs Motion for Reconsideration6
R9<1:=94 to unani&ously IR2NT partially, the RespondentEs Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, Resolution No. S=333/##!/-# dated -1 May /##! is here)y 2&ended, )y lo$ering the
reco&&ended penalty of <uspension against respondent 2tty. Rosario Cautista fro& si% *6+
&onths to AD.ONITION.
T5/ Issu/
The issue in this case is $hether respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of
co&plainant.
T5/ Ru+!"g o> t5/ #ou2t
The Court affir&s the /8 1cto)er /#11 Resolution No. SS/#111"- of the Coard of Iovernors
of the 3C7, reducing the reco&&ended penalty fro& si% &onths to ad&onition.
Be agree $ith the finding of the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner that respondent )reached his duty
to serve his client $ith co&petence and diligence. Respondent is also guilty of violating Rule
18.#- of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, $hich states that Fa la$yer shall not neglect a
legal &atter entrusted to hi&, and his negligence in connection there$ith shall render hi& lia)le.G
Do$ever, $e do not find respondent guilty of violating Rule //.#/ of the Code of 7rofessional
Responsi)ility
@1-A
since respondent i&&ediately turned over to co&plainant the folder containing
the docu&ents and letters pertaining to her case upon the severance of respondentEs legal
services.
1nce a la$yer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is e%pected to serve his
client $ith co&petence, and to attend to his clientEs cause $ith diligence, care and devotion.
@1"A
2s held in San&'a>( .. F(?a"6
@1;A
3t is a%io&atic that no la$yer is o)liged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person $ho
&ay $ish to )eco&e his client. De has the right to decline e&ploy&ent, su)ject, ho$ever, to
Canon 1" of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility. 1nce he agrees to ta0e up the cause of
@hisA client, the la$yer o$es fidelity to such cause and &ust al$ays )e &indful of the trust and
confidence reposed in hi&. De &ust serve the client $ith co&petence and diligence, and
cha&pion the latterEs cause $ith $holehearted fidelity, care and devotion. 9lse$ise stated, he
o$es entire devotion to the interest of his client, $ar& ?eal in the &aintenance and defense of
his clientEs rights, and the e%ertion of his ut&ost learning and a)ility to the end that nothing )e
ta0en or $ithheld fro& his client, save )y the rules of the la$, legally applied. This si&ply &eans
that his client is entitled to the )enefit of any and every re&edy and defense that is authori?ed )y
the la$ of the land and he &ay e%pect his la$yer to assert every such re&edy or defense. 3f
&uch is de&anded fro& an attorney, it is )ecause the entrusted privilege to practice la$ carries
$ith it the correlative duties not only to the client )u also to the court, to the )ar, and to the
pu)lic. 2 la$yer $ho perfor&s his duty $ith diligence and candor not only protects the interest of
his client8 he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the )ar, and helps &aintain the
respect of the co&&unity to the legal profession.
@16A
3n this case, respondent attri)utes his delay in filing the appropriate cri&inal case to the a)sence
of conciliation proceedings )et$een co&plainant and her si)lings )efore the )arangay as
re5uired under 2rticle /// of the Civil Code and the :ocal Iovern&ent Code. Do$ever, this
e%cuse is )elied )y the Certification to 'ile 2ction )y the 1ffice of the L!:(n>
Ta>a:ama3a:a, 1ffice of the Carangay Council, Carangay 4aanghari, Navotas. The
Certification to 'ile 2ction $as issued on 1 (uly /##/, $hich $as &ore than four &onths )efore
co&plainant engaged respondentEs legal services on /; Nove&)er /##/. RespondentEs
allegation that co&plainant failed to infor& hi& a)out the e%istence of the Certification to 'ile
2ction is hard to )elieve considering co&plainantEs deter&ination to file the case against her
si)lings. Clearly, respondent has )een negligent in handling co&plainantEs case.
3n Ca%'4( .. A&&3. D$ L(" R$3$",
@1!A
the respondent la$yer $ho failed to file a co&plaintaffidavit
)efore the prosecutorEs office, restituted the 71#,### acceptance fee paid to hi&. The
respondent la$yer in Ca%'4( $as repri&anded )y the Court $ith a $arning that he should )e
&ore careful in the perfor&ance of his duty to his clients.
3n this case, co&plainant is as0ing for the refund of 71",### out of the 71;,### acceptance fee
considering that, apart fro& sending a letter to the City 9ngineer of Navotas City, respondent did
nothing &ore to advance his clientEs cause during the si% &onths that co&plainant engaged his
legal services. Be agree $ith the reco&&endation of the 3nvestigating Co&&issioner and the
3C7 Coard of Iovernors that a refund is in order.
8HEREFORE, the Court AFFIR.S the /8 1cto)er /#11 Resolution No. SS/#111"- of the
Coard of Iovernors of the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines, reducing the reco&&ended penalty
fro& si% &onths to ad&onition. The Court finds 2tty. Rosario C. Cautista G6I&T' of violating
Canon 18 and Rule 18.#- of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility and he is AD.ONISHED to
e%ercise greater care and diligence in the perfor&ance of his duty to his clients. 2tty. Cautista is
ordered to RESTIT6TE to co&plainant 71",### out of the 71;,### acceptance fee.
SO ORDERED.
B%'(n, D$* Ca"&'**(, P$%$2, and P$%*a"-B$%na=$, JJ., concur.
SE#OND DIVISION
[ A.#. No. 9)87 AFo20/2+, #3D #4s/ No. *5(1562B, $u"/ 2*, 2*12 ]
EMILIA R. HERNANDE,, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA,
RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
SERENO, $.%
This is a dis)ar&ent case filed )y 9&ilia Dernande? *co&plainant+ against her la$yer, 2tty.
=enancio C. 7adilla *respondent+ of 7adilla 7adilla Cautista :a$ 1ffices, for his alleged
negligence in the handling of her case.
The records disclose that co&plainant and her hus)and $ere the respondents in an eject&ent
case filed against the& $ith the Regional Trial Court of Manila *RTC+.
3n a 4ecision
@1A
dated /8 (une /##/, penned )y (udge Ros&ari 4. Carandang *(udge
Carandang+, the RTC ordered that the 4eed of <ale e%ecuted in favor of co&plainant )e
cancelled8 and that the latter pay the co&plainant therein, 9lisa 4uigan *4uigan+, attorney,s fees
and &oral da&ages.
Co&plainant and her hus)and filed their Notice of 2ppeal $ith the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of
2ppeals *C2+ ordered the& to file their 2ppellants, Crief. They chose respondent to represent
the& in the case. 1n their )ehalf, he filed a Me&orandu& on 2ppeal instead of an 2ppellants,
Crief. Thus, 4uigan filed a Motion to 4is&iss the 2ppeal. The C2 granted the Motion in a
Resolution
@/A
dated 16 4ece&)er /##-.
No Motion for Reconsideration *MR+ of the Resolution dis&issing the appeal $as filed )y the
couple. Co&plainant clai&s that )ecause respondent ignored the Resolution, he acted $ith
.deceit, unfaithfulness a&ounting to &alpractice of la$..
@-A
Co&plainant and her hus)and failed
to file an appeal, )ecause respondent never infor&ed the& of the adverse decision.
Co&plainant further clai&s that she as0ed respondent .several ti&es. a)out the status of the
appeal, )ut .despite in5uiries he deli)erately $ithheld response @sicA,. to the da&age and
prejudice of the spouses.
@"A
The Resolution )eca&e final and e%ecutory on 8 (anuary /##". Co&plainant $as infor&ed of
the Resolution so&eti&e in (uly /##;, $hen the <heriff of the RTC ca&e to her house and
infor&ed her of the Resolution.
1n 9 <epte&)er /##;, co&plainant filed an 2ffidavit of Co&plaint
@;A
$ith the Co&&ittee on Car
4iscipline of the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines *3C7+, see0ing the dis)ar&ent of respondent
on the follo$ing grounds6 deceit, &alpractice, and grave &isconduct. Co&plainant prays for
&oral da&ages in the a&ount of 7-;#,###.
Through an 1rder
@6A
dated 1/ <epte&)er /##;, 4irector of Car 4iscipline Rogelio 2. =inluan
ordered respondent to su)&it an ans$er to the Co&plaint. 3n his Counter2ffidavitN2ns$er,
@!A
respondent prayed for the outright dis&issal of the Co&plaint.
Respondent e%plained that he $as not the la$yer of co&plainant. De averred that prior to the
&andatory conference set )y the 3C7 on 1- 4ece&)er /##;, he had never &et co&plainant,
)ecause it $as her hus)and $ho had personally transacted $ith hi&. 2ccording to respondent,
the hus)and .despondently pleaded to &e to prepare a Me&orandu& on 2ppeal )ecause
according to hi& the period given )y the C2 $as to lapse $ithin t$o or three days..
@8A
Thus,
respondent clai&s that he filed a Me&orandu& on 2ppeal )ecause he honestly )elieved that .it
is this pleading $hich $as re5uired..
@9A
Cefore filing the Me&orandu&, respondent advised co&plainant,s hus)and to settle the case.
The latter allegedly .gestured approval of the advice..
@1#A
2fter the hus)and of co&plainant pic0ed up the Me&orandu& for filing, respondent never sa$ or
heard fro& hi& again and thus assu&ed that the hus)and heeded his advice and settled the
case. Bhen respondent received an 1rder fro& the C2 re5uiring hi& to file a co&&ent on the
Motion to 4is&iss filed )y 4uigan, he .instructed his office staff to contact Mr. Dernande? thru
availa)le &eans of co&&unication, )ut to no avail..
@11A
Thus, $hen co&plainant,s hus)and $ent
to the office of respondent to tell the latter that the <heriff of the RTC had infor&ed co&plainant
of the C2,s
Resolution dis&issing the case, respondent $as just as surprised. The la$yer e%clai&ed, .O2:2
O1 C2 N2O372I 2R9I:1 N2 O2M1..
@1/A
3n his ; (anuary /##9 Report,
@1-A
3C7 3nvestigating Co&&issioner :eland R. =illadolid, (r. found
that respondent violated Canons ;, 1!, and 18 of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility *the
Code+. De reco&&ended that respondent )e suspended fro& practicing la$ fro& - to 6
&onths.
The )oard of governors of the 3C7 issued Resolution No. S3S/#1#";/ on /8 2ugust /#1#.
Therein, they resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Reco&&endation of the
3nvestigating Co&&issioner. Respondent $as suspended fro& the practice of la$ for si%
&onths.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
@1"A
De prayed for the rela%ation of the application
of the Canons of the Code. 1n 1" (anuary /#1/, the 3C7 )oard of governors passed Resolution
No. SS/#1/1!
@1;A
partly granting his Motion and reducing the penalty i&posed to one&onth
suspension fro& the practice of la$.
7ursuant to Rule 1-9C of the Rules of Court, acting 4irector for Car 4iscipline 4ennis 2.C.
'una, through, a letter
@16A
addressed to then Chief (ustice Renato C. Corona, trans&itted the
docu&ents pertaining to the dis)ar&ent Co&plaint against respondent.
Be adopt the factual findings of the )oard of governors of the 3C7. This Court, ho$ever,
disagrees $ith its 4ecision to reduce the penalty to one&onth suspension. Be thus affir& the
si%&onth suspension the Coard originally i&posed in its /8 2ugust /#1# Resolution.
Respondent insists that he had never &et co&plainant prior to the &andatory conference set for
the dis)ar&ent Co&plaint she filed against hi&. Do$ever, a perusal of the Me&orandu& of
2ppeal filed in the appellate court revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant
appellants therein, including co&plainant and her hus)and.
@1!A
The pleading starts $ith the
follo$ing sentence6 .49'9N42NT@<A2779::2NT<, )y counsel, unto this Donora)le Court
su)&it the Me&orandu& and further allege that6 % % %..
@18 A
No$here does the docu&ent say that it
$as filed only on )ehalf of co&plainant,s hus)and.
3t is further clai&ed )y respondent that the relation created )et$een hi& and co&plainant,s
hus)and cannot )e treated as a .clientla$yer. relationship, .'26
3t is no &ore than a client needing a legal docu&ent and had it prepared )y a la$yer for a fee.
Jnder the factual &ilieu and circu&stances, it could not )e said that a client entrusted to a
la$yer handling and prosecution of his case that calls for the strict application of the Code8 % %
%
@19A
2s proof that none of the& ever intended to enter into a la$yerclient relationship, he also
alleges that co&plainant,s hus)and never contacted hi& after the filing of the Me&orandu& of
2ppeal. 2ccording to respondent, this )ehavior $as .very unusual if he really )elieved that he
engaged. the for&er,s services.
@/#A
Co&plainant pointed out in her Reply
@/1A
that respondent $as her la$yer, )ecause he accepted
her case and an acceptance fee in the a&ount of 7!,###.
2ccording to respondent, ho$ever, .@CAontrary to the co&plainant,s clai& that he charged
7!,### as acceptance fee,. .the fee $as only for the preparation of the pleading $hich is even
lo$ for a Me&orandu& of 2ppeal6 %%%..
@//A
2cceptance of &oney fro& a client esta)lishes an attorneyclient relationship and gives rise to
the duty of fidelity to the client,s cause.
@/-A
1nce a la$yer agrees to handle a case, it is that
la$yer,s duty to serve the client $ith co&petence and diligence.
@/"A
Respondent has failed to fulfill
this duty.
2ccording to respondent, he &erely drafted the pleading that co&plainant,s hus)and as0ed fro&
hi&. Respondent also clai&s that he filed a Me&orandu& of 2ppeal, )ecause he .honestly
)elieved. that this $as the pleading re5uired, )ased on $hat co&plainant,s hus)and said.
The 3C7 3nvestigating Co&&issioner,s o)servation on this &atter, in the ; (anuary /##9 Report,
is correct. Regardless of the particular pleading his client &ay have )elieved to )e necessary, it
$as respondent,s duty to 0no$ the proper pleading to )e filed in appeals fro& RTC
decisions, .'26
Daving seen the 4ecision dated 18 (une /##/ of the trial court, respondent should have 0no$n
that the &ode of appeal to the Court of 2ppeals for said 4ecision is )y ordinary appeal under
<ection /*a+ RuAe "1 of thel99! Revised Rules of Civil 7rocedure. 3n all such cases. Rule "" of
the said Rules applies.
@/;A
Bhen the RTC ruled against co&plainant and her hus)and, they filed a Notice of 2ppeal.
Conse5uently, $hat should apply is the rule on ordinary appealed cases or Rule "" of the Rules
on Civil 7rocedure. Rule "" re5uires that the appellant,s )rief )e filed after the records of the
case have )een elevated to the C2. Respondent, as a litigator, $as e%pected to 0no$ this
procedure. Canon ; of the Code reads6
C2N1N ; R 2 la$yer shall 0eep a)reast of legal develop&ents, participate in continuing legal
education progra&s, support efforts to achieve high standards in la$ schools as $ell as in the
practical training of la$ students and assist in disse&inating infor&ation regarding the la$ and
jurisprudence.
The o)ligations of la$yers as a conse5uence of their Canon ; duty have )een e%pounded
in D!*a%'a, J%. .. C%!2,
@/6A
to $it6
3t &ust )e e&phasi?ed that the pri&ary duty of la$yers is to o)ey the la$s of the land and
pro&ote respect for the la$ and legal processes. They are e%pected to )e in the forefront in the
o)servance and &aintenance of the rule of la$. This duty carries $ith it the o)ligation to )e $ell
infor&ed of the e%isting la$s and to 0eep a)reast $ith legal develop&ents, recent enact&ents
and jurisprudence. 3t is i&perative that they )e conversant $ith )asic legal principles. Jnless
they faithfully co&ply $ith such duty, they &ay not. )e a)le to discharge co&petently and
diligently their o)ligations as &e&)ers of the )ar. Borse, they &ay )eco&e suscepti)le to
co&&itting &ista0es.
3n his MR, respondent )egged for the consideration of the 3C7, clai&ing that the reason for his
failure to file the proper pleading $as that he .did not have enough ti&e to ac5uaint hi&self
thoroughly $ith the factual &ilieu of the case.. The 3C7 reconsidered and thereafter significantly
reduced the penalty originally i&posed.
Respondent,s plea for leniency should not have )een granted.
The supposed lac0 of ti&e given to respondent to ac5uaint hi&self $ith the facts of the case
does not e%cuse his negligence.
Rule 18.#/ of the Code provides that a la$yer shall not handle any legal &atter $ithout
ade5uate preparation. Bhile it is true that respondent $as not co&plainant,s la$yer fro& the trial
to the appellate court stage, this fact did not e%cuse hi& fro& his duty to diligently study a case
he had agreed to handle. 3f he felt he did not have enough ti&e to study the pertinent &atters
involved, as he $as approached )y co&plainant,s hus)and only t$o days )efore the e%piration
of the period for filing the 2ppellant,s Crief, respondent should have filed a &otion for e%tension
of ti&e to file the proper pleading instead of $hatever pleading he could co&e up $ith, just to
.)eat the deadline set )y the Court of 2ppeals..
@/!A
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he $as given notice of the fact that he filed the $rong
pleading. Do$ever, instead of e%plaining his side )y filing a co&&ent, as ordered )y the
appellate court, he chose to ignore the C2,s 1rder. De clai&s that he $as under the
presu&ption that co&plainant and her hus)and had already settled the case, )ecause he had
not heard fro& the hus)and since the filing of the latter,s Me&orandu& of 2ppeal.
This e%planation does not e%cuse respondent,s actions.
'irst of all, there $ere several re&edies that respondent could have availed hi&self of, fro& the
&o&ent he received the Notice fro& the C2 to the &o&ent he received the dis)ar&ent
Co&plaint filed against hi&. Cut )ecause of his negligence, De chose to sit on the case and do
nothing.
<econd, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to infor& his clients of the status of their case. Dis
failure to do so a&ounted to a violation of Rule 18.#" of the Code, $hich reads6
18.#" 2 la$yer shall 0eep the client infor&ed of the status of his case and shall respond $ithin
a reasona)le ti&e to the client,s re5uest for infor&ation.
3f it $ere true that all atte&pts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have
done $as to infor& the C2 )y filing a Notice of Bithdra$al of 2ppearance as counsel. De could
have thus e%plained $hy he $as no longer the counsel of co&plainant and her hus)and in the
case and infor&ed the court that he could no longer contact the&.
@/8A
Dis failure to ta0e this
&easure proves his negligence.
:astly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a co&&ent on 4uigan,s Motion to
4is&iss is negligence on his part. Jnder 18.#- of the Code, a la$yer is lia)le for negligence in
handling the client,s case, .'26
Rule 18.#- 2 la$yer shall not neglect a legal &atter entrusted to hi&, and his negligence in
connection there$ith shall render hi& lia)le.
:a$yers should not neglect legal &atters entrusted to the&, other$ise their negligence in
fulfilling their duty $ould render the& lia)le for disciplinary action.
@/9 A
Respondent has failed to live up, to his duties as a la$yer. Bhen a la$yer violates his duties to
his client, he engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for $hich he should )e held
accounta)le.
8HEREFORE, respondent 2tty. =enancio 7adilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.#/, 18.#-,
18.#", as $ell as Canon ; of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility. Dence, he
is S6S:ENDED fro& the practice of la$ for SIC A6B .ONTHS and STERN&' 8ARNED that a
repetition of the sa&e or a si&ilar offense $ill )e dealt $ith &ore severely.
:et copies of this Resolution )e entered into the personal records of respondent as a &e&)er of
the )ar and furnished to the Car Confidant, the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines, and the Court
2d&inistrator for circulation to all courts of the country for their infor&ation and guidance.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ca%:'(, /C0a'%:$%"(n1, B%'(n, P$%$2, and R$3$", JJ., concur.
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.#. No. 69*), A92!+ 16, 2*12 ]
SU,ETTE DEL MUNDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO,
RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
:ER&AS(3ERNA3E, $.%
Cefore the Court is an ad&inistrative co&plaint
@1A
for dis)ar&ent filed )y co&plainant <u?ette 4el
Mundo *<u?ette+ charging respondent 2tty. 2rnel C. Capistrano *2tty. Capistrano+ of violating
the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility.
T5/ F4ts
1n (anuary 8, /##;, <u?ette and her friend Ric0y <. Tuparan *Tuparan+ engaged the legal
services of 2tty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective
&arriages allegedly for a fee of 7h71"#,###.## each. 1n the sa&e date, a <pecial Retainer
2gree&ent
@/A
$as entered into )y and )et$een <u?ette and 2tty. Capistrano $hich re5uired an
acceptance fee of 7h7-#,###.##, appearance fee of 7h7/,;##.## per hearing and another
7h7/,;##.## per pleading. 3n addition, 2tty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare
a&ounts for the follo$ing e%penses6
7h711,###.## 'iling fee
7h7;,###.## <u&&ons
7h71;,###.## 'iscal
7h7-#,###.## 7sychiatrist
7h71;,###.## Co&&issioner
3n accordance $ith their agree&ent, <u?ette gave 2tty. Capistrano the total a&ount of
7h7!8,;##.##, to $it6
(anuary 8, /##; 7h7-#,###.## 2cceptance fee
(anuary 1;, /##; 7h711,###.## 'iling fee
'e)ruary -, /##; 7h7;,###.## 'iling fee
May ", /##; 7h7/,;##.## 'iling fee
(une 8, /##; 7h7-#,###.## 'iling fee
'or every pay&ent that <u?ette &ade, she $ould in5uire fro& 2tty. Capistrano on the status of
her case. 3n response, the latter &ade her )elieve that the t$o cases $ere already filed )efore
the Regional Trial Court of Mala)on City and a$aiting notice of hearing. <o&eti&e in (uly /##;,
$hen she could hardly reach 2tty. Capistrano, she verified her case fro& the Cler0 of Court of
Mala)on and discovered that $hile the case of Tuparan had )een filed on (anuary /!, /##;, no
petition has yet )een filed for her.
Dence, <u?ette called for a conference, $hich $as set on (uly /8, /##;, $here she de&anded
the refund of the total a&ount of 7h7!8,;##.##, )ut 2tty. Capistrano instead offered to return the
a&ount of 7h76-,###.## on staggered )asis clai&ing to have incurred e%penses in the filing of
TuparanEs case, to $hich she agreed. 1n the sa&e occasion, 2tty. Capistrano handed to her
copies of her unfiled petition,
@-A
TuparanEs petition
@"A
and his Bithdra$al of 2ppearance
@;A
in
TuparanEs case $ith instructions to file the& in court, as $ell as a list
@6A
containing the e%penses
he incurred and the schedule of pay&ent of the a&ount of 7h76-,###.##, as follo$s6
7h7/#,###.## 2ugust 1;, /##;
7h7/#,###.## 2ugust /9, /##;
7h7/-,###.## <epte&)er 1;, /##;
Do$ever, 2tty. Capistrano only returned the a&ount of 7h7;,###.## on 2ugust 1;, /##; and
thereafter, refused to co&&unicate $ith her, pro&pting the institution of this ad&inistrative
co&plaint on <epte&)er !, /##;.
3n his Co&&entN2ns$er
@!A
dated Nove&)er 1", /##;, 2tty. Capistrano ac0no$ledged receipt of
the a&ount of 7h7!8,;##.## fro& <u?ette and his underta0ing to return the agreed su& of
7h76-,###.##. De also ad&itted responsi)ility for his failure to file <u?etteEs petition and cited as
justification his heavy $or0load and )usy schedule as then City :egal 1fficer of Manila and lac0
of availa)le funds to i&&ediately refund the &oney received.
3n the Resolution
@8A
dated (anuary 18, /##6, the Court resolved to refer the case to the 3ntegrated
Car of the 7hilippines *3C7+ for investigation, report and reco&&endation.
T5/ At!o" 4"< R/o00/"<4t!o" o> t5/ I3:
'or failure of respondent 2tty. Capistrano to appear at the &andatory conference set )y
Co&&issioner :olita 2. Uuisu&)ing of the 3C7 Co&&ission on Car 4iscipline *3C7CC4+, the
conference $as ter&inated $ithout any ad&issions and stipulations of facts and the parties $ere
ordered to file their respective position papers to $hich only 2tty. Capistrano co&plied.
3n the Report and Reco&&endation
@9A
dated 2pril 11, /##!, the 3C7CC4, through Co&&issioner
Uuisu&)ing, found that 2tty. Capistrano had neglected his clientEs interest )y his failure to
infor& <u?ette of the status of her case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of
&arriage. 3t also concluded that his ina)ility to refund the a&ount he had pro&ised <u?ette
sho$ed deficiency in his &oral character, honesty, pro)ity and good de&eanor. Dence, he $as
held guilty of violating Rule 18.#-, and Rule 18.#", Canon 18 of the Code of 7rofessional
Responsi)ility and reco&&ended the penalty of suspension for t$o years fro& the practice of
la$.
1n <epte&)er 19, /##!, the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors adopted and approved the report and
reco&&endation of Co&&issioner Uuisu&)ing through Resolution No. S=333/##!98
@1#A
$ith
&odification ordering the return of the su& of 7h71"#,###.## attorneyEs fees to <u?ette.
Do$ever, upon 2tty. CapistranoEs ti&ely &otion for reconsideration, the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors
passed Resolution No. S3S/#11/6-
@11A
on May 1", /#11 reducing the penalty of suspension
fro& t$o years to one year, to $it6
RESOLVED &( PARTIALLY GRANT R$":(n$n&J" M(&'(n ;(% R$#(n"'$%a&'(n, an
!nan'm(!"*3 MODIFY a" '& '" 0$%$=3 MODIFIED R$"(*!&'(n N(. -VIII-8KKG-LH a&$ 6L
S$:&$m=$% 8KKG an REDUCED &0$ :$na*&3 a>a'n"& A&&3. A%n$* C. Ca:'"&%an(
&( !%!PEN!"$N ;%(m &0$ :%a#&'#$ (; *a< ;(% (n$ /61 3$a% an O%$%$ &( R$&!%n &0$ am(!n& (;
On$ H!n%$ F(%&3 T0(!"an P$"(" /P6MK,KKK.KK1 &( #(m:*a'nan& <'&0 &0'%&3 /7K1 a3" ;%(m
%$#$':& (; n(&'#$.
T5/ Issu/
The sole issue )efore the Court is $hether 2tty. 2rnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of
7rofessional Responsi)ility.
T5/ Ru+!"g o> t5/ #ou2t
2fter a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs $ith the findings and reco&&endation
of the 3C7CC4 )ut ta0es e%ception to the a&ount of 7h71"#,###.## reco&&ended to )e
returned to <u?ette.
3ndisputa)ly, 2tty. Capistrano co&&itted acts in violation of his s$orn duty as a &e&)er of the
)ar. 3n his Manifestation and 7etition for Revie$,
@1/A
he hi&self ad&itted lia)ility for his failure to
act on <u?etteEs case as $ell as to account and return the funds she entrusted to hi&. De only
pleaded for the &itigation of his penalty citing the lac0 of intention to )reach his la$yerEs oath8
that this is his first offense8 and that his profession is the only &eans of his and his fa&ilyEs
livelihood. De also prayed that the adjudged a&ount of 7h71"#,###.## )e reduced to
7h7!-,;##.## representing the a&ount of 7h7!8,;##.## he received less his pay&ent of the
su& of 7h7;,###.##. Conse5uently, Co&&issioner Uuisu&)ing and the 3C7CC4 Coard of
Iovernors correctly reco&&ended the appropriate penalty of one year suspension fro& the
practice of la$ for violating the pertinent provisions of the Canons of 7rofessional Responsi)ility,
thus6
C2N1N 16 P 2 :2BM9R <D2:: D1:4 3N TRJ<T 2:: M1N9M< 2N4 7R179RT39< 1' D3<
C:39NT TD2T M2M C1M9 3NT1 D3< 71<<9<<31N.
RJ:9 16.#1 P 2 la$yer shall account for all &oney or property collected or received for or fro&
the client.
RJ:9 16.#/ P 2 la$yer shall 0eep the funds of each client separate and apart fro& his o$n and
those of others 0ept )y hi&.
%%%
C2N1N 18 P 2 :2BM9R <D2:: <9R=9 D3< C:39NT B3TD C1M79T9NC9 2N4 43:3I9NC9.
%%%
RJ:9 18.#- P 2 la$yer shall not neglect a legal &atter entrusted to hi&, and his negligence in
connection there$ith shall render hi& lia)le.
RJ:9 18.#" P 2 la$yer shall 0eep the client infor&ed of the status of his case and shall respond
$ithin a reasona)le ti&e to the clientEs re5uest for infor&ation.
3ndeed, $hen a la$yer ta0es a clientEs cause, he covenants that he $ill e%ercise due diligence in
protecting the latterEs rights. 'ailure to e%ercise that degree of vigilance and attention e%pected
of a good father of a fa&ily &a0es the la$yer un$orthy of the trust reposed on hi& )y his client
and &a0es hi& ans$era)le not just to his client )ut also to the legal profession, the courts and
society.
@1-A
Dis $or0load does not justify neglect in handling oneEs case )ecause it is settled that
a la$yer &ust only accept cases as &uch as he can efficiently handle.
@1"A
Moreover, a la$yer is o)liged to hold in trust &oney of his client that &ay co&e to his
possession. 2s trustee of such funds, he is )ound to 0eep the& separate and apart fro& his
o$n. Money entrusted to a la$yer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of
a case if not utili?ed, &ust )e returned i&&ediately upon de&and. 'ailure to return gives rise to
a presu&ption that he has &isappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on hi&. 2nd the
conversion of funds entrusted to hi& constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and
)etrayal of pu)lic confidence in the legal profession.
@1;A
To stress, the practice of la$ is a privilege given to la$yers $ho &eet the high standards of legal
proficiency and &orality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They &ust perfor& their
fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance $ith the
values and nor&s of the legal profession as e&)odied in the Code of 7rofessional
Responsi)ility.
@16A
'alling short of this standard, the Court $ill not hesitate to discipline an erring
la$yer )y i&posing an appropriate penalty )ased on the e%ercise of sound judicial discretion in
consideration of the surrounding facts.
@1!A
Bith the foregoing dis5uisition and 2tty. CapistranoEs ad&ission of his fault and negligence, the
Court finds the penalty of one year suspension fro& the practice of la$, as reco&&ended )y the
3C7CC4, sufficient sanction for his violation. Do$ever, the Court finds proper to &odify the
a&ount to )e returned to <u?ette fro& 7h71"#,###.## to 7h7!-,;##.##.
8HEREFORE, respondent 2tty. 2rnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18
of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, is S6S:ENDED fro& the practice of la$ for one year
$ith a stern $arning that a repetition of the sa&e or si&ilar acts shall )e dealt $ith &ore
severely. De is ORDERED to return to <u?ette 4el Mundo the full a&ount of 7h7!-,;##.##
$ithin -# days fro& notice hereof and DIRE#TED to su)&it to the Court proof of such pay&ent.
:et copies of this 4ecision )e entered in the personal record of respondent as a &e&)er of the
7hilippine Car and furnished the 1ffice of the Car Confidant, the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines
and the Court 2d&inistrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
V$*a"#(, J%., P$%a*&a, A=a, and M$n(2a, JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.#. No. )28), $u+, 1), 1995 ]
RODOLFO MILLARE, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. EUSTA+UIO ,. MONTERO, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
D6IASON, $.%
This is a co&plaint for dis)ar&ent. 7ursuant to paragraph /, <ection 1, Rule 1-9C of the
Revised Rules of Court, this Court resolved to refer it to the 3ntegrated Car of the 7hilippines
*3C7+ for investigation, report and reco&&endation.
1n 2pril 1;, 199", the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors rendered a decision, finding respondent guilty of
&alpractice and reco&&ending that he )e suspended fro& the practice of la$.
3
7acifica Millare, the &other of the co&plainant, o)tained a favora)le judg&ent fro& the
Municipal Trial Court, Cangued, 2)ra *MTC+ $hich ordered 9lsa 4y Co to vacate the pre&ises
su)ject of the eject&ent case *Civil Case No. 8""+. Co, through respondent as counsel,
appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court, Cranch 11, Cangued, 2)ra *RTC+. <he
neither filed a supersedeas )ond nor paid the rentals adjudged )y the MTC. The RTC affir&ed
in toto the decision of the MTC.
The Court of 2ppeals *C2+ dis&issed Co,s appeal fro& the decision of the RTC for failure to
co&ply $ith <ection // of C.7. Clg. 1/9 and <ection //*)+ of the 3nteri& Rules and Iuidelines
*C2I.R. C= No. 11"#"+. 2ccording to the C2, Co should have filed a petition for revie$ and
not an ordinary appeal *R(**(, =ol. 3, p. //+.
The judg&ent of the MTC )eca&e final and e%ecutory on Nove&)er 19, 1986.
1n (anuary /, 198!, a Manifestation and Motion $as filed )y respondent as counsel for Co in
C2I.R. C= No. 11"#", arguing that the decisions of the MTC and the RTC $ere null and void
for )eing contrary to la$, justice and e5uity for allo$ing the lessor to increase )y -##T the
rentals for an old house. Respondent, ad&itting his &ista0e in filing an ordinary appeal instead
of a petition for revie$, prayed that he )e allo$ed to file an action for annul&ent.
1n 'e)ruary /-, 198!, the C2 gave due course to respondent,s Manifestation and Motion and
let the records re&ain $ith it. Do$ever, on Nove&)er 1#, 198!, the said court ordered the
records in C2I.R. C= No. 11"#" to )e re&anded to the court a 5!(.
1n March 9, 198!, respondent filed $ith the C2 a 7etition for 2nnul&ent of 4ecisions andNor
Refor&ation or Novation of 4ecisions of the MTC and the RTC *C2I.R. <7 No. 1169#+,
insisting that the decisions $ere not in accordance $ith e%isting la$s and policies. 1n 4ece&)er
1!, 198!, the C2 dis&issed the petition for annul&ent or novation e%plaining that
.%%%, aside fro& the reliefs provided in these t$o sections *<ecs. 1 K /, Rule -8+, there is no
other &eans $here)y the defeated party &ay procure final and e%ecutory judg&ent to )e set
aside $ith a vie$ to the rene$al of the litigation, unless *a+ the judg&ent is void for $ant of
jurisdiction or lac0 of due process of la$, or *)+ it has )een o)tained )y fraud, % % %. T0$%$ '" n(
a**$>a&'(n 'n &0$ :%$"$n& #(m:*a'n& &( &0$ $;;$#& &0a& &0$ ?!>m$n&" 'n &0$ ;(%m$% #a"$" <$%$
"$#!%$ &0%(!>0 ;%a!I *R(**(, =ol. 3, p. -;8 Jnderscoring supplied+.
1n (anuary 1;, 1988, respondent filed an Jrgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to <et
Motion for Reconsideration for 1ral 2rgu&ents of the C2 decision. The C2 denied the &otion.
2gain, respondent re5uested the C2 to set his Motion 'or 1ral 2rgu&ents on 2pril 1", 1988.
3n a resolution dated 'e)ruary 1/, 1988, the C2 denied the Motion for 1ral 2rgu&ent and in a
resolution dated 1cto)er 18, 1988, denied the &otion for reconsideration of the 'e)ruary 1/
Resolution.
Respondent then filed a 7etition for Revie$ on C$%&'(%a%' $ith this Court *I.R. No. 86#8"+
5uestioning the decisions of the MTC and the RTC in favor of petitioner,s &other. 3n a
Resolution dated (anuary ", 1989, $e denied the petition for having )een filed and paid late on
4ece&)er 1/, 1988 and Nove&)er 1/, 1988, respectively. 2 &otion for reconsideration fro&
such resolution $as li0e$ise denied $ith finality.
Respondent filed a Motion for the 3ssuance of a 7rohi)itory or Restraining 1rder *dated (uly 6,
1988+ in C2I.R. <7 No. 1169#.
1n 2pril 1/, 1988, the &other of co&plainant filed a Motion for 9%ecution of the judg&ent in Civil
Case No. 8"". Respondent filed an 1pposition to the Motion for 9%ecution on the ground that
the case $as still pending revie$ )y the C2 in C2I.R. <7 No. 1169# and therefore the &otion
for e%ecution $as pre&ature. 1n 2ugust /-, 1988, the MTC ordered the issuance of a $rit of
e%ecution. Respondent filed a &otion for reconsideration, $hich $as denied. The RTC affir&ed
the order for the issuance of the $rit of e%ecution. Thus, a $rit of e%ecution $as issued on
1cto)er 18, 1988.
1n 1cto)er /6, 1988, respondent filed a special civil action *<7 C= No. 6/"+ $ith the RTC,
Cranch 1, Cangued, 2)ra for #$%&'(%a%', prohi)ition, manam!" $ith preli&inary injunction against
the MTC, 7rovincial <heriff and co&plainant,s &other, see0ing to annul the $rit of e%ecution
issued in MTC Civil Case No. 8"" and RTC Civil Case No. -"". Respondent alleged that the
order granting the $rit of e%ecution $as issued $ith grave a)use of discretion a&ounting to lac0
of jurisdiction since a petition to annul the decisions *C2I.R. <7 No. 1169#+ $as still pending
$ith the C2.
1n 1cto)er /8, 1988, the provincial sheriff, Ro&ulo =. 7aredes, deferred the i&ple&entation of
the $rit of e%ecution until the petition filed in <7 C= No. 6/" for #$%&'(%a%' $as resolved. The C2
denied in <7 C= No. 6/" respondent,s Jrgent Motion to <et 2side and 4eclare Null and =oid
the Brit of 9%ecution.
'ro& the decision of the RTC, Cranch l, 2)ra in <7 C= No. 6/" denying the 7etition
for C$%&'(%a%', 7rohi)ition,Manam!" $ith 7reli&inary 3ssuance of 7rohi)itory 1rder, respondent
again filed an 2ppeal andNor Revie$ )yC$%&'(%a%'8 9tc. $ith the C2 *C2I.R. <7 No. 1!#"#+.
33
Be have no reason to reverse the findings of the 3C7 Coard of Iovernors.
Jnder Canon 19 of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, a la$yer is re5uired to represent his
client .$ithin the )ounds of the la$.. The Code enjoins a la$yer to e&ploy only fair and honest
&eans to attain the la$ful o)jectives of his client *Rule 19.#1+ and $arns hi& not to allo$ his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the case *Rule19.#-+. 3n short, a la$yer is not a gun
for hire.
2dvocacy, $ithin the )ounds of the la$, per&its the attorney to use any argua)le construction of
the la$ or rules $hich is favora)le to his client. Cut the la$yer is not allo$ed to 0no$ingly
advance a clai& or defense that is un$arranted under e%isting la$. De cannot prosecute
patently frivolous and &eritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions *2nnotated Code
of 7rofessional Responsi)ility -1# @19!9A+. 7rofessional rules i&pose li&its on a la$yer,s ?eal
and hedge it $ith necessary restrictions and 5ualifications *Bolfra&, Modern :egal 9thics ;!9
;8/ @1986A+.
Jnder Canon 1/ of the Code of 7rofessional Responsi)ility, a la$yer is re5uired to e%ert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient ad&inistration of justice.
3&ple&enting said Canon are the follo$ing rules6
.Rule 1/.#/. 2 la$yer shall not file &ultiple actions arising fro& the sa&e cause.
%%% %%% %%%
.Rule 1/.#". 2 la$yer shall not unduly delay a case, i&pede the e%ecution of a judg&ent or
&isuse court processes..
3t is unethical for a la$yer to a)use or $rongfully use the judicial process, li0e the filing of dilatory
&otions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and
delaying the e%ecution of a judg&ent *9delstein, The 9thics of 4ilatory Motions 7ractice6 Ti&e
for Change, "" 'ordha& :. Rev. 1#69 @19!6A8 1ver&eyer v. 'idelista and 4eposit Co., ;;" '. /d
;-9, ;"- @/d Cir. 19!1A+.
The rights of respondent,s client in Civil Case No. 8"" of the MTC $ere fully protected and her
defenses $ere properly ventilated $hen he filed the appeal fro& the MTC to the RTC. Cut
respondent thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded &eans to delay the e%ecution of the
judg&ent rendered )y the MTC adverse to his client. The said decision )eca&e e%ecutory even
pending its appeal $ith the RTC )ecause of the failure of Co to file a supersedeas )ond and to
pay the &onthly rentals as they fell due. 'urther&ore, his petition for annul&ent of the decisions
of the MTC and RTC $hich he filed $ith the C2 *C2I.R. No. 1169#+ $as defective and
dilatory. 2ccording to the C2, there $as no allegation therein that the courts had no jurisdiction,
that his client $as denied due process, or .that the judg&ents in the for&er cases $ere secured
through fraud..
2s ruled in R$>'(% .. C(!%& (; A::$a*", /19 <CR2 ;-# *199-+6
.2 judg&ent can )e annulled only on t$o grounds6 *a+ that the judg&ent is void for $ant of
jurisdiction or for lac0 of due process of la$, or *)+ that it has )een o)tained )y fraud. % % %. *at
p. ;-"+.
Moreover, $hen the C2 ordered that the records of the case )e re&anded, respondent 0ne$
very $ell that the decision of the MTC $as already ripe for e%ecution.
This Court, in P$(:*$ (; Pa(m=(n>, B!*a#an .. C(!%& (; A::$a*", /18 <CR2 "/- *199-+, ruled6
VC:1COUJ1T9W.%%% @$Ahen the judge&ent of a superior court is re&anded to the trial court for
e%ecution, the function of the trial court is &inisterial only8 the trial court is &erely o)liged $ith
)eco&ing &odesty to enforce that judg&ent and has no jurisdiction either to &odify in any $ay
or to reverse the sa&e. %%%. *at p. "-#+.VNC:1COUJ1T9W
*<ee also =alen?ona v. Court of 2ppeals, //6 <CR2 -#6 @199-A and Iar)o v. Court of 2ppeals,
//6 <CR2 /;# @199-A+.
Respondent filed a total of si% appeals, co&plaints or petitions to frustrate the e%ecution of the
MTC judg&ent in Civil Case No. 8"", to $it6
*1+ Civil Case No. -"" 2ppeal fro& the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 8"" of the
Municipal Trial Court, Cangued, 2)ra, $ith the Regional Trial Court, 2)ra8
*/+ C2I.R. C= No. 11"#" 2ppeal fro& the decision of the Regional Trial Court, 2)ra8
*-+ C2I.R. <7 No. 1169# 2n 2ction 'or the 2nnul&ent of 4ecisions 2ndN1r Refor&ation or
Novation of 4ecisions filed $ith the Court of 2ppeals8
*"+ I.R. No. 86#8" 7etition 'or Revie$ 1n C$%&'(%a%' filed $ith the <upre&e Court8
*;+ C2I.R. <7 No. 1!#"# 2ppeal 2ndN1r Revie$ Cy C$%&'(%a%', 9tc. filed also $ith the Court
of 2ppeals8 and,
*6+ <7 Civil 2ction No. 6/" 7etition 'or C$%&'(%a%', 7rohi)ition, Manam!" $ith 7reli&inary
3ssuance of 7rohi)itory 1rder filed $ith the Regional Trial Court, Cranch 3, Cangued, 2)ra.
(udging fro& the nu&)er of actions filed )y respondent to forestall the e%ecution of the sa&e
judg&ent, respondent is also guilty of foru& shopping.
3n V'**an!$.a .. A%$ 1!/ <CR2 8!6 *1989+, the Court e%plained that foru& shopping e%ists
$hen, )y reason of an adverse decision in one foru&, defendant ventures to another for a &ore
favora)le resolution of his case. 3n the case of Ia)riel v. Court of 2ppeals, !/ <CR2 /!/
*19!6+, this Court e%plained that6
VC:1COUJ1T9W.S!#0 ;'*'n> (; m!*&':*$ :$&'&'(n" #(n"&'&!&$" a=!"$ (; &0$ C(!%&F" :%(#$""$"
an 'm:%(:$% #(n!#& &0a& &$n" &( 'm:$$, (="&%!#& an $>%a$ &0$ am'n'"&%a&'(n (; ?!"&'#$
an <'** =$ :!n'"0$ a" #(n&$m:& (; #(!%&. N$$*$"" &( a, &0$ *a<3$% <0( ;'*$ "!#0 m!*&':*$
(% %$:$&'&'(!" :$&'&'(n" /<0'#0 (=.'(!"*3 $*a3" &0$ $N$#!&'(n (; a ;'na* an $N$#!&(%3 ?!>m$n&1
"!=?$#&" 0'm"$*; &( '"#':*'na%3 a#&'(n ;(% 'n#(m:$&$n#$ /;(% n(& )n(<'n> an3 =$&&$%1 (% ;(% <'**;!*
.'(*a&'(n (; 0'" !&'$" a" an a&&(%n$3 to act $ith all good fidelity to the courts and to &aintain only
such actions as appear to hi& to )e just and are consistent $ith truth and honor. *at p.
/!;+.VNC:1COUJ1T9W
Cy having $illfully and 0no$ingly a)used his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favora)le
judg&ent, $hich efforts $ere all re)uffed, respondent violated the duty of a &e&)er of the Car to
institute actions only $hich are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to )e truly
contesta)le under the la$s *Iarcia v. 'rancisco, //# <CR2 ;1/ @199-A+. 2s correctly noted )y
the Co&&ittee on Car 4iscipline .in filing a nu&)er of pleadings, actions and petitions,
respondent Xhas &ade a &oc0ery of the judicial processes, and disregarded canons of
professional ethics in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in $hose favor a judg&ent in
the case $as rendered, thus, Xa)used procedural rules to defeat ends of su)stantial justice,.
*Report and Reco&&endation, 3C7 Co&&ittee on Car 4iscipline, p. /+.
8HEREFORE, respondent is <J<79N494 for one year.
SO ORDERED.
Pa'**a, /C0a'%man1, Da.'$, J%., B$**("'**(, and Ka:!nan, JJ., concur.