PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID v ATTY. JUAN S.

DEALCA
A.C. No. 7474 , September 9, 2014

The complainant is an RTC judge in Sorsogon who filed an administrative case for
disbarment against Atty. Dealca, a lawyer, who he accused of filing frivolous
administrative cases against judges and personnel of the courts
The case arose when Atty. Dealca filed an Entry of Appearance in a criminal case
in behalf of the accused. Aside from entering his appearance, Atty. Dealca also
moved to have the case re-raffled to another branch.
[c]onsidering the adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and
the undersigned, where he does not appear before the incumbent Presiding
Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by the undersigned.
The complainant denied the motion to re-raffle, ordering that the court will not
allow a case to be removed from it because of the personal sentiments between
the judge and counsel. It noted that Atty. Dealcass motion is an affront to the
integrity of the court, and his propensity for filing administrative cases against the
judge, which were all, dismissed by the Supreme Court
He denied the motion to withdraw filed by Atty. Judar and denied the entry of
appearance of Atty. Dealca.
Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint with the Office of the Bar
Confidant against respondents practice of entering his appearance as counsel
and then moving for the inhibition of the judge on the pretext of previous adverse
incidents between them.
Atty. Dealca asserted that his order unlawfully deprived the accused of his
constitutional right to be represented by counsel; that it was the judge who
exhibited bias and prejudice against the accused, and that it should be Judge
Madrid who should be disbarred and ultimately dismissed from the judiciary.
The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty Dealca be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six months, finding Atty. Dealca guilty of violating
the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing frivolous
adminstrative and criminal complaints.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against
judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility

RULING:
YES. The Lawyers Oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit. Atty. Dealca was
aware of his duty under his Lawyers Oath not to initiate groundless, false or
unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility thuswise:
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the
orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must
resist the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his clients propensities to
litigate, so must he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating
unfounded suits. While it is the Courts duty to investigate and uncover the truth
behind charges against judges and lawyers, it is equally its duty to shield them
from unfounded suits that are intended to vex and harass them, among other
things.
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the
proper administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of
the unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the
workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise
of the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith
ROBERTO BERNARDINO VS. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS
A.C. No. 10583 [Formerly CBD 09-2555], February 18, 2015

Facts: Complainant filed a Letter-Complaint against respondent before the IBP,

praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and subjected to disciplinary action.
Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt was falsified by Atty.
Santos because he made it appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992, when in fact,
she died in 1990.
He alleged that Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to support the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by Mariano Turla, husband of Rufina Turla.
Years later, Atty. Santos, on behalf of the daughter of Rufina and Mariano Turla,
filed a Complaint for sum of money with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and temporary restraining order against Bernardino. The Complaint alleged that
Marilu Turla is an heir of Mariano Turla, which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted. Hence, Atty. Santos represented clients
with conflicting interests.

Another Complaint was filed against Atty. Santos by Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal.
It alleged that Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests. He also
alleged that in representing Marilu Turla, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against
the claims of Mariano Turla.

Atty. Caringal further alleged Atty. Santos allegedly violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he drafted Mariano Turlas
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. The Affidavit states that Mariano Turla is the sole
heir of Rufina Turla, but Atty. Santos knew this to be false. Atty. Santos wife, Lynn
Batac, is Mariano Turlas niece. As part of the family, Atty. Santos knew that Rufina
Turla had other heirs.

Moreover, Atty. Santos allegedly converted funds belonging to the heirs of

Mariano Turla for his own benefit.
In his Answer, Atty. Santos denied all allegations against him.

Issue: Whether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility?

Held: Yes, he violated Canon 10.

Respondent violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states:
CANON 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice.

As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. In doing
so, lawyers are expected to be honest in all their dealings. Unfortunately,
respondent was far from being honest. With full knowledge that Rufina Turla had
another heir, he acceded to Mariano Turlas request to prepare the Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication.

Time and again, The Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with
public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client,
but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and
takes part in one of the most important functions of the Statethe administration
of justiceas an officer of the court. Accordingly, [l]awyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

The Court found Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03
and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed
the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.