SILVESTRA MEDINA AND SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA VS. ATTY.

RUFINO LIZARDO
A.C. NO. 10533. JANUARY 31, 2017

Facts:
Atty. Lizardo is the counsel of Silvestra and her sister, the late Alicia
Medina (Alicia), who is also the mother of Santos. According to Atty.
Lizardo, Silvestra entrusted TCTs No. 13866 and 3900 to him
sometime in 1987 because Silvestra, Santos, and Alicia sold their
shares in lots 456, 457 and 458 in favor of a certain Renato Martinez
(Martinez). Atty. Lizardo claims that he refused to return the subject
TCTs because complainants did not secure the written consent of
Martinez. It must be noted that respondent is lawyering for the
complainants and at the same time, lawyering for the interest of
Renato Martinez.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Lizardo violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Held:
Yes. Atty. Lizardo violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides:
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
In the case at bar, it is undeniable that complainants Silvestra and
Santos, on one hand, and Martinez, on the other, have conflicting
interests with regard to the disputed property, particularly Lot 456
covered by TCT No. 3900 which complainants assert they never sold to
Martinez. Atty. Lizardo now finds himself arguing against the
ownership by Silvestra and Santos of their shares in the disputed
property, which is the very legal position he was bound to defend as
their counsel in the partition case.
As counsels for Silvestra and Alicia, Atty. Lizardo is required to deliver
the property of his client when due or upon demand, and mandated to
always be loyal to them and vigilant to protect their interests.
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI
A.C. No. 11095, January 31, 2017

Facts:
Disbarment complaint was filed against respondent Atty. Ryan Rey L.
Pasagani before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-commission on
bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), that the respondent violated their agreement
for the latter to facilitate and secure a loan to finance the payment of
necessary expenses to transfer the title of a certain property under her
name, she claimed that respondent obtained a loan using their
property as a collateral, but atty. Pasagni arrogated the proceeds.

Issue:
Whether or not a malpractice or gross misconduct can be used as
grounds for disbarment of a lawyer.

Held:
The court ruling was in favor of the complainant, the Court found that
the respondent was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct
in converting the money of his client to his own use without her
consent, his failure to use the proceeds for the transfer of the title in
complainant’s name. He did not only betray the trust and confidence of
his client, he is likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful
conduct.
SUSAN LOBERES-PINTAL VS. ATTY. RAMONCITO B. BAYLOSIS
A.C. No. 11545, January 24, 2017

Facts:
Susan Loberes-Pintal (Susan) filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Baylosis for committing perjury, falsification of public documents
and the use of falsified documents. She alleged that Roldan C. Pintal
(Roldan) filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of their Marriage
before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (RTC); that Atty.
Baylosis conspired with Roldan by making it appear that he was a
resident of Caloocan City when in fact he was a resident of Quezon
City; and that Atty. Baylosis notarized the verification and certification
against non-forum shopping of the petition on May 13, 2011, but, at
that time, Roldan was out of the country. Susan submitted a
Certification from the Barangay Chairman and a Certification from the
Bureau of Immigration as proof.
Atty. Baylosis denied the accusation and insisted that when Roldan
went to his office in January 2011, he personally interviewed him and
asked him to submit his personal documents; that Roldan provided
him a Certification from the Chairman, that Roldan reviewed the
petition and affixed his signature in the Verification and Certification;
that Roldan personally appeared before him, swore in accordance with
law and verified his petition in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Atty. Baylosis further averred that the date of recording on May 13,
2011 of the Verification and Certification of the petition was an honest
mistake and excusable error on the part of his staff but his claim that
Roldan personally appeared before him was true.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Baylosis is guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.

Held:
Yes. Atty. Baylosis violated not only the rule on notarial practice but
also the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct. As evidenced by a certification issued by the Bureau of
Immigration, Roldan was not in the Philippines on May 13, 2011 as he
had left the Philippines on April 10, 2011 and came back only on
September 8, 2011.
ARTHUR O. MONARES VS. ATTY. LEVI P. MUÑOZ
A.C. No. 5582 / A.C. No. 5604 / A.C. No. 5652, January 24,
2017

Facts:
For resolution is the Joint Petition for Review with Prayer for Absolution
and/or Clemency2 (Joint Petition) dated May 14, 2009 filed by
respondent Atty. Levi P. Muñoz (Muñoz), in connection with the
complaints for disbarment filed by Arthur 0. Monares (Monares), Atty.
Oliver 0. Olaybal (Olaybal) purportedly representing Albay Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO), and Benjilieh M. Constante (Constante),
dated January 17, 2002, February 4, 2002 and March 21, 2002,
respectively.

Monares filed against Ludolfo Muñoz (Ludolfo) before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Legazpi City. In his complaint, Monares alleged that
Muñoz represented his brother Ludolfo in the said case during regular
government hours while employed as Provincial Legal Officer of Albay
City.

Olaybal raised that after its administrator, the National Electrification

Administration (NEA), deactivated the old BOD on the ground of
mismanagement, Muñoz served as retained counsel of the NEA-
appointed team which took over the management of ALECO.

Constante of Sunwest claimed that Muñoz filed ten (10) cases against
Sunwest on Ludolfo' s behalf before the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) while he was serving as Provincial Legal Officer.
All three (3) complaints prayed that Muñoz be disbarred for unlawfully
engaging in private practice. In addition, Olaybal sought Muñoz's
disbarment for acts of disloyalty, particularly, for violating the rule
against conflict of interest.

In his respective comments to the complaints, Muñoz claimed that he

had requested Governor Al Francis C. Bichara (Governor Bichara) for
authority to continue his private practice shortly after his appointment.
This request was granted on July 18, 1995.10 Thereafter, Muñoz
submitted the same request to Rafael C. Alunan III, then Secretary of
the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).11 On
September 8, 1995, Acting Secretary Alexander P. Aguirre granted
Muñoz request, under the following conditions:
1. That no government time, personnel, funds or supplies shall be
utilized in connection (sic) and that no conflict of interest with your
present position as Provincial Legal Officer shall arise thereby;
2. That the time so devoted outside of office hours, the place(s) and
under what circumstances you can engage in private employment shall
be fixed by the Governor of Albay to the end that it will not impair in
any way your efficiency; and.
3. That any violation of the above restrictions will be a ground for
the cancellation and/or revocation of this authority.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Levi Muñoz may practice privately even though
he is a government employee?

Held:
No. Atty. Levi P. Muñoz is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and
violation of Rules 1.01, 6.02, 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Muñoz violated the conditions of his DILG authorization prohibiting him
from utilizing government time for his private practice. Most notably,
Muñoz did not deny Monares' allegation that he made at least eighty-
six (86) court appearances in connection with at least thirty (30)
cases. He merely alleged that his private practice did not prejudice the
functions of his office.
EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. VS. ATTY. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY,
ET AL.
A.C. NO. 7478, JANUARY 11, 2017

Facts:
Alicias filed an administrative complaint before the Court accusing
Macatangay, Zerna, Ronquillo, and Buenaflor of violation of the
Lawyer's Oath or Code of Professional Responsibility, gross neglect of
duty, and gross ignorance of the law. Alicias alleged that respondents,
(1) did not conduct a careful evaluation of the records; (2) did not
hear the arguments of both partes; (3) ignored uncontroverted
documentary evidence adduced by him; (4) erroneously applied
established jurisprudence; (5) denied him due process of law by not
furnishing him a copy of the CSC's Order directing the CSC-NCR to
comment and a copy of the CSC-NCR comment; and (6) willfully did
not give him a copy of the Resolution of his petition for review.
Respondents argued that Alicias was not denied due process because
after the denial of his motion for reconsideration, he still had the
available remedy of filing a petition for review on certiorari with the
Court of Appeals.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, dismissing the
complaint for lack of merit and likewise denied the motion for
reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not the IBP has jurisdiction over an administrative case
filed against the lawyers.

Held:
No. The IBP has no jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint.
The administrative complaint must be filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman.
In the present case, the allegations in Alicias' complaint against the
lawyers aforementioned all relate to their misconduct in the discharge
of their official duties as government lawyers working in the CSC,
hence, it is within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their
superior or the Office of the Ombudsman.