Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
in him. Atty. Gomez failed to observe the utmost good faith, loyalty,
candor, and fidelity required of an attorney in his dealings with
complainant. Atty. Gomez exceeded his authority when he entered into
a compromise agreement with regard to the FCB account in Quezon
Branch, where he agreed that complainant shall receive 40 percent of
the proceeds while the heirs of Rufino shall get the 60 percent, which
was contrary to the original agreement of 50-50 sharing. Atty. Gomez
likewise acted beyond the scope of the SPA when he included in the
compromise agreement the FCB account in Narra branch when it was
issued only with respect to the FCB account, Quezon branch. Moreover,
Atty. Gomez entered into a compromise agreement with respect to the
other properties of Rufino without authority from complainant. Lawyers
should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Public confidence
in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and
comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in
the integrity of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE,
respondent
Atty.
Carlo
Gomez
is
hereby
declared GUILTY of violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year
CANON 18
Fidela Vda. de Enriquez v atty. San Jose, AC No. 3569, Feb. 23, 2007 (VELASCO)
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Fidela Vda. De Enriquez against respondent Atty. Manuel G.
San Jose for gross negligence.
Facts:
Petitioner hired the services of respondent for filing an unlawful detainer case against a lessee who defaulted
in the payment of monthly rentals on petitioners property. Respondent failed to file the appropriate civil case, despite
payment of attorneys fees, so the case was withdrawn from him. Petitioner demanded the return of documents, but
despite repeated demands, respondent refused and failed to return the documents. Thus, the action for unlawful
detainer prescribed. Petitioner alleged further that her daughter who worked for respondent was not paid her salary.
Respondent, in his Comment, denied being negligent. He alleged that petitioner sent him a letter informing
him that the lessee already agreed to vacate the premises, thus filing the case became unnecessary. He also
explained that there was a vacancy in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, therefore he did not file the case because the
case could not be filed until a new judge was appointed. He also claimed that petitioners daughter was paid her salary.
The case was referred to the IBP. The investigating officer found that respondent was indeed remiss in the
performance of his professional duties as counsel. It concluded that respondent was guilty of negligence. The
Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months. However, the
penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors was only one-month suspension.
Respondent filed a petition to dismiss the case against him. The petition was dismissed by the IBP for lack of
merit.
-----
him the copy of the decision, and respondent replied that "it was
already in default." Complainant then demanded that the records of
the case be shown to him but again, respondent refused. 11
Respondent, for his part, claimed that it was complainant who notified
him of the adverse decision and promised that he would verify this
with the city court.12 Respondent then requested the complainant to
return the next day. He insisted that unlike the notices of previous
hearings in the case, he did not receive any notice from the City
Court of the supposed hearing that was reset on June 18, 1976; 13 that
the signature appearing therein was not his; and that he did not know
who had affixed the same. 14 Thereafter, he informed the complainant
that he had already prepared a draft pleading; that he would file it to
have the decision set aside; and that it could easily be proven that
"the signature appearing in the records was not his signature." 15
The presentation of the parties respective evidence was terminated
on September 6, 1977. After they submitted their respective
Memoranda, the case was transferred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The parties were
then required to furnish copies of the documentary exhibits submitted
in evidence.
Incidentally, it appears that a confusion as to the identity of
respondent arose when the IBP-CBD sent a Notice 16 dated January
15, 1992 setting the hearing of the case on February 28, 1992 to a
certain Atty. Edgardo S. Arias at the latters address in Puerto
Princesa City, Palawan. On the date set for hearing, the said Edgardo
S. Arias filed a Motion to Be Furnished Copy of Complaint and for ReSetting of Hearing, averring therein that he did not know the nature of
the charge against him because he had not been furnished a copy of
the complaint and other supporting documents. Accordingly, he
requested that complainant be ordered to furnish him a copy of the
complaint and that he be given at least fifteen days thereafter to file
his answer or comment.17 On May 5, 1992, he filed his comment.
Emphasizing therein that his middle name was SORCA, he lamented
that the instant complaint must have referred to Atty. Edgardo
SANCHEZ Arias, a practicing lawyer in Manila, and not to himself for
the reason that he had been permanently residing and practicing his
profession in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan since 1971. 18
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This
simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he
may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with its correlative duties not only to
the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer
who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the
interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to
the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.
Respondents actuations belie his claim that he had not been remiss
in his duties to his client. The records show that on March 25, 1976,
he received a notice of hearing27 for the setting of the case for trial on
April 30, 1976. He went to the City Court on the appointed day. 28
However, finding that plaintiff and defendant (complainant herein)
therein had not yet arrived, he requested the clerk of court to cancel
the hearing on the ground that he had two (2) criminal cases pending
in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branches 17 and 29 which he
had to attend to.29 He then failed to verify the next hearing date with
the court. When asked why he failed to do so, respondent declared
that it "slipped [his] mind and took the word of the Clerk of Court that
notices [would] be sent to both parties. 30 As it turned out, the said
hearing was re-scheduled to June 18, 1976, the day plaintiff
presented his evidence ex parte. Forthwith, judgment was rendered
based solely thereon after which, execution ensued. 31 Respondent
should have, at the very least, moved to have the hearing postponed
on the ground of conflict in his scheduled hearings in other cases.
Indeed, the negligent failure of respondent to act accordingly under
the circumstances clearly negates not only his claim that he
"appeared in court always mindful of his duties," 32 but also his vow to
serve his client with competence and diligence 33 and not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him. 34 Respondents actuations likewise
violate Rule 18.04, which mandates that a lawyer keep the client
informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable
time to a clients request for information. A client must never be left in
the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and confidence
reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal
profession in general.35
It must be stressed that public interest requires that an attorney exert
his best efforts in the prosecution or defense of a clients cause. A
lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only
protects the interests of his client, he also serves the ends of justice,
does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. 36 Lawyers are indispensable part
of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a
time when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the
legal profession, strict compliance with ones oath of office and the
canons of professional ethics is an imperative. 37
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Edgardo Arias y
Sanchez is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for One (1) month.
He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act
in the future shall be dealt with more severely. He is likewise
DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable
the Court to determine when his suspension shall have taken effect.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all the courts of
the country.
SO ORDERED.
----------Atty. Elmer Solidon vs Atty. Ramil Macaladlad
FACTS:
or
not
Atty.
Elayda
should
be
CANON 19
Atty. Briones v Atty. Jimenez, AC No. 6691, April. 27, 2007 (BUENAVENTURA)
Facts: Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is the counsel
for the Heirs of the late Luz J. Henson (Heirs).
On April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the RTC a notice of appeal from the Order dated April 3, 2002, questioning the
payment of commission to Atty. Briones.
On April 29, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70349 assailing the Order dated March 12, 2002, appointing the firm of Alba,
Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit at the expense of the late Luz J. Henson, as well as the Order dated April 3, 2002,
insofar as it denied their motion for recommendation.
On July 26, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the CA a Petition for Mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 71844, alleging
that the respondent Judge therein unlawfully refused to comply with his ministerial duty to approve their appeal which
was perfected on time.
Atty. Briones, in his Comment, contends that the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, represented by Atty. Jimenez, are
guilty of forum shopping for which reason, the petition should be dismissed.
On February 11, 2003, the CA without touching on the forum shopping issue, granted the petition and ordered the
respondent Judge to give due course to the appeal taken by Atty. Jimenez from the Order dated April 3, 2002, insofar
as it directed the payment of commission to Atty. Briones.
Atty. Briones (hereinafter referred to as complainant) filed his "Memorandum with Administrative Complaint for
Disbarment against Atty. Jacinto Jimenez, Counsel for Respondents", for violation of Rule 19.01 and Rule 12.08 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Revised Circular No. 28-91 on forum shopping.
Complainant claims that Atty. Jimenez (hereinafter referred to as respondent) and the Heirs engaged again in forum
shopping when respondent, as counsel for the Heirs, filed a criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against
complainant for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order dated April 3, 2002 which directed complainant to
deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares, punishable under Article 151 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Complainant further claims that respondent violated Rules 19.01 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE: WON respondent Atty. Jimenez violated Canon 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilty
HELD: Yes.
On January 31, 2007, the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation recommending that the administrative
complaint against Atty. Jimenez be dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court agrees with the OBC that respondent is not guilty of forum shopping. Records show that respondent, as
counsel for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, filed a special civil action docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70349 assailing
the Order of March 12, 2002 appointing the accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as auditor; and, a regular appeal
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 71488 assailing the Order of April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of
commission to complainant. It is evident that there is identity of parties but different causes of action and reliefs sought.
Hence, respondent is not guilty of forum shopping. The Court likewise finds no fault on the part of respondent in
executing an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint as held in the Santiago case.
However, there is sufficient ground in support of complainants claim that respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Records reveal that before respondent assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint
against herein complainant, he sent demand letters to the latter to comply with the Order of Judge Tipon to deliver the
residue of the estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson. Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand
letters, respondent opted to file said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the
court.
Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in
filing the criminal complaint against herein complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him; and that
a lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. The Court is not convinced. Fair play demands
that respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate
delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the
same Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client must be within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client. Canon 15, Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance
with the laws and the principle of fairness. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of
the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice. While
lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should
not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. 17
Although respondent failed to live up to this expectation, there is no evidence that he acted with malice or bad faith.
Consequently, it is but fit to reprimand respondent for his act of unfair dealing with complainant. It must be stressed
that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be
exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment
should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as reprimand, suspension, or fine would
accomplish the end desired.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and
solely for the recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings account of complainant subsequent acts and events say
otherwise, to wit:
1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings deposit is too high;
2.) Respondent actively acted as complainants lawyer to effectuate the compromise agreement.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Terrado was administratively liable for charging excessive fees.
HELD: Yes. Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery of complainants savings deposit
from Planters Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in the
drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent
admitted that he explained the contents of the agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her signature.
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of
the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. 11
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and
STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN,
within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this
Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom.
law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening
confidence in the legal system.
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking
justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant
of the law and ethics.Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.
-----
CANON 20
Lijuaco v Atty. Terrado, AC No. 6317, Aug.31, 2006 (FABELLA)
FACTS: On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint 1 was filed by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against
respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorneys fees.
According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to
assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of
P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as
Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24 docketed
as LRC Case No. B-2610.
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and
solely for the recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings account of complainant subsequent acts and events say
otherwise, to wit:
1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings deposit is too high;
2.) Respondent actively acted as complainants lawyer to effectuate the compromise agreement.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Terrado was administratively liable for charging excessive fees.
HELD: Yes. Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery of complainants savings deposit
from Planters Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in the
drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent
admitted that he explained the contents of the agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her signature.
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of
the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. 11
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and
STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN,
within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this
Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom.
1977 when the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis,
parcels of land belonging to the latter situated in Antipolo, Rizal, with a total land area of 1,790,570.36 square
meters, more or less. This case was lodged before the RTC, Branch 141.
On 25 May 1983, said case was ordered archived6 by Branch 141.
About a month before the aforecited case was ordered archived, the Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal
services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor civil case, with a letter-agreement:
o Informing Zuzuarreguis that Roxas and Pastor will be the one to represent them in the case.
o Content of the letter-agreement from the 2 lawyers:
We shall endeavor to secure just compensation with the NHA and other govtal agencies
at a price of P11.00 or more per square meter. Any lower amount shall not entitle us to
any attorneys fees. At such price of P11.00 per square meter or more our contingent fee
is 30% of the just compensation.
Our lawyers fees shall be in the proportion of the cash/bonds ration of the just
compensation. Like wise our fees are subject to 10% withholding tax.
o 29 October 1984 partial decision was rendered by Branch 141 fixing the just compensation to be
paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30.00 per square meter.
o 23 November 1984 NHA filed MR praying that the partial decision be reconsidered and set aside,
and a NEW ONE RENDERED LOWERING AMOUNT of just compensation in accordance with
applicable laws.
o Pending resolution. A Joint Special Power of Attorney was executed by Zuzuaregguis in favor of
Atty. Roxas and Pastor:
Giving full power and authority to their said attorneys on whatsoever requisite or proper
to be done about the premise.
o 10 December 1985 Letter-Agreement was executed by and b/n Zuzuarreguis, and Roxas and
Pastor
content:
an amendment to their first agreement regarding the attorneys fees for their
(Zuzurreguis) properties expropriated by NHA covering 179 hectares; they are now
accepting as final and complete settlement the price of P17.00 per square meter for a
total of 30.4 million pesos.
For the consideration of their service as their lawyers (Roxas and Pastor) they will be
paid as their contingent attys fees any and all amount in excess of the P17.00 per
square meter payable in NHA bonds.
The letter-agreement serves as their authority to collect directly from NHA the amount
pertaining to their contingent attys fees.
The letter-agreement also amends and supersedes the previous agreement regarding
their attys fees.
o 16 December 1985 - Resolution No. 1174 was issued by the NHA stating that Zuzuarregui property
would be acquired at a cost of P19.50 square meter.
o Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the 1,790,570.36 square meters property of the
Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of P34,916,122.00. The total amount released by
the NHA was P54,500,000.00. The difference of P19,583,878.00 is, undoubtedly, the yield on the
bonds.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners (Atty. Roxas and Atty. Pastor) charge fair and reasonable in their attorneys fees.
Held: NO.
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, contend in the main that the Zuzuarreguis are only
entitled to the amount of P17.00 per square meter for the 1,790,570.36 square meters expropriated by the
government. This was, according to them, embodied in the Letter-Agreement dated 10 December 1985,
wherein the Zuzuarreguis agreed to accept the price of P17.00 per square meter. Besides, Attys. Roxas and
Pastor contend that the price of P17.00 was even way above the P11.00
The Zuzuarreguis, for their part, though they were triumphant in the Court of Appeals, insist that the amounts
awarded them were not enough. According to them, the P12,596,696.425 awarded by the Court of Appeals
was not correct. They should have been awarded the amount of P17,073,122.70.
It was, therefore, in error to still deduct the amount of P4,476,426.28 from petitioners share in the yield in the
amount of P17,073,122.70 leaving then only P12,596,696.42.
A contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of
the case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness.
In cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, the same should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case, and should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its
reasonableness, such that under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is
tasked to charge only fair and reasonable fees.
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court partly states:
o SEC. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have
and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view
to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and
the professional standing of the attorney. x x x. A written contract for services shall control the
amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was equal to forty-four percent (44%)
of the just compensation paid (including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, or an
amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of the P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full-blown
hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is, undeniably,
unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances. Its reduction is, therefore, in order.
It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys. Roxas and Pastor must be equitably reduced. In
the opinion of this Court, the yield that corresponds to the percentage share of the Zuzuarreguis in the
P19.50 per square meter just compensation paid by the NHA must be returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor.
The Zuzuarreguis are entitled to the yield equal to 87.18% of the P19,583,878.00, while Attys. Roxas and
Pastor are entitled to 12.82% of said amount. The amount corresponding to 87.17% of P19,583,878.00 is
P17,073,224.84. This is the yield that the Zuzuarreguis are entitled to. Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other
hand, are entitled to P2,510,653.16.
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, in the opinion of this Court, were not shortchanged for their efforts for they would
still be earning or actually earned attorneys fees in the amount of P6,987,078.75 (P4,476,425.59 +
P2,510,653.16).
The amount of P17,073,224.84 must therefore be returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor to the Zuzuarreguis.
They can take this out from the yield in the amount of P19,583,878.00 which they have appropriated for
themselves.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated 25 June 2001 and 06 February 2002, respectively, are AFFIRMED but with the
MODIFICATION that Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor are hereby ordered to return to the
Zuzuarreguis the amount of P17,073,224.84. No costs.
------
THIRD DIVISION
VALENTIN
C.
MIRANDA,
A.
6281
Complainant,
Pres
PE
- versus-
J.,
Chair
ABA
PER
MEN
and
PER
BERN
JJ.
Prom
:
Sept
26, 20
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities
of the Integrated Bar.
-----Maniago vs. Atty. De Dios (AC No. 7472, March 30, 2010)
Facts:
Complainant seeks for a disbarment case against respondent, Atty.
Lourdes de Dios, for engaging in the practice of law despite having
been suspended by the Court. The petitioner alleged that she filed a
criminal case against a certain Hiroshi Miyata, which was then
represented by the respondent. Petitioner then discovered from an
RTC staff that the respondent had an outstanding suspension order
from the Supreme Court since 2001.
In her response, respondent explained that though it is true that an
administrative case was indeed filed against her where she meted a
penalty of six months suspension. However, she already served such
suspension immediately after the receipt of the Courts resolution on
May November 2001; that she formally informed the Court that she
was resuming he practice of law, which she actually did.
A problem arose when then Judge Farrales erroneously issued a
derivative in 2007 ordering respondent to desist from the practice of
law and revoked her notarial commission for 2 years. Respondent files
a Motion for Clarification which gave the impression that respondent is
not yet allowed to resume in her practice of law.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after evaluation,
recommended the lifting of the order of suspension, allowing the
respondent to resume from her practice of law, even despite the fact of
neglecting to submit the required certifications that respondent has
already served her desistance.
ISSUE:
WON the respondents resumption from the practice of law is valid
despite her failure to submit required certifications and passing
through OBC for evaluation.
HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court resolved this foregoing case based from the
following guidelines:
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from
the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing
the penalty;
of