A.C. No.

10583 February 18, 2015

[Formerly CBD 09-2555]

ROBERTO BERNARDINO, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, Respondent.

LEONEN, J.:

FACTS:

Administrative complaints were filed against Atty. Santos for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing clients with conflicting interests.

Complainant Roberto C. Bernardino (Bernardino) alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina de Castro
Turla, was falsified by Atty. Santos, making it appear that the Rufina died in 1992 when in fact she died in 1990.
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 Marilu Turla, daughter of Rufina and Mariano
Turla, filed a Complaint for sum of money against Bernanrdino. The said complaint alleged that Marilu Turla is an
heir of Mariano Turla, which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted.

In his Answer, Atty. Santos denied having falsified the death certificate. He explained that the death certificate and
the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication were given to him by Mariano Turla and that he was not aware that there was a
falsified entry in the death certificate. As regards the issue on conflict of interest, Atty. Santos argued that he did
not represent and was not representing conflicting interests since Mariano Turla was already dead. He added that
he was representing Marilu Turla against those who had an interest in her father’s estate.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD) recommended that Atty.
Santos be suspended for three (3) months. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the adopted and
approved the findings and recommendations of the (IBP-CBD).

ISSUES: 1. Did Atty. Santos violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?

2. Is the penalty of 3 months from the practice of law proper?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the
Court modified the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from three (3) months to one (1)
year.

The respondent violated the rule against representing conflicting interests when he agreed to represent
Marilu Turla because he would necessarily refute Mariano Turla’s claim that he is Rufina Turla’s sole heir. Worse,
he knew that Mariano Turla was not the only heir, as he himself stated on the witness stand during the trial of the
civil case for collection of sum of money against Bernardino.
 Atty. Santos violated Canon 10 for having been dishonest in his dealings as a lawyer. He also violated Rule
15.03, which mandates him to inform Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla that there is a conflict of interest and to
obtain their written consent.

A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016

SPOUSES EDWIN B. BUFFE AND KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, Complainants, v. SEC. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, USEC.
FIDEL J. EXCONDE, JR., AND CONGRESSMAN ELEANDRO JESUS F. MADRONA, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, ACTING C.J.:

FACTS:

Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Karen M. Silverio-Buffe (Silverio-Buffe) as

Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon province. The Romblon Provincial Prosecutor asked
former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez (Gonzalez) to confirm the appointment of Silverio-Buffe since the
Provincial Prosecution Office did not receive any official communication regarding Silverio-Buffe's appointment.
Gonzalez ordered Silverio-Buffe to cease and desist from acting as prosecutor in the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Romblon, otherwise she will be charged of usurpation of public office.

Silverio-Buffe, together with her husband, filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Joint
Complaint-Affidavit alleging that former Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona (Madrona), acting out of spite or
revenge, persuaded and influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. (Exconde) into refusing to
administer Silverio-Buffe's oath of office and into withholding the transmittal of her appointment papers to the DOJ
Regional Office. Madrona allegedly acted out of spite or revenge against Silverio-Buffe because she was one of the
plaintiffs in a civil case for enforcement of a Radio Broadcast Contract, which was cancelled by the radio station due
to adverse commentaries against Madrona and his allies in Romblon.

The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended the penalty of censure against the respondents.
However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and dismissed the
complaint against the respondents.

ISSUE: Should Gonzalez, Exconde, and Madrona be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the
complaint?

RULING:

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case against Exconde and Madrona for lack of
jurisdiction. The present administrative case should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman, considering that
complainants have also filed a complaint before it on 12 February 2009. In the case of Gonzalez, his death on 7
September 2014 forecloses any administrative case against him.

The Court explained that the authority of the Ombudsman to act on complainants' administrative
complaint is anchored on Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 16 of RA 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The foregoing provisions provide that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee
during his or her tenure. Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are public officers being charged for actions,
which are allegedly unfair and discriminatory, involving their official functions during their tenure, the present case
should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the appropriate government agency. Indeed, the IBP has no
jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties.
For such acts, government lawyers fall under the disciplinary authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman.

A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016

ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO, Respondent.

DECISION

JARDELEZA, J.:

FACTS:

Shirley Atkinson (Shirley) is married to Derek Atkinson (Derek), a British Citizen. She purchased two parcels of
land, both of which she intended to mortgage. In order to facilitate the mortgage on one parcel of land, Derek
allegedly executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights which he subscribed before complainant as a notary public.
Thus, Shirley was able to mortgage the land without the signature of marital consent of Derek Atkinson.

Derek, however, claims that he could not have executed the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights because he was out of the
country and could not have personally appeared before complainant on that date that the said waiver was
subscribed. Thus, he filed falsification cases against complainant and Shirley.

During the pendency of the criminal cases, complainant filed a complaint-affidavit before the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline against respondent. She alleged that in representing Derek in the criminal cases against her and
Shirley for falsification, respondent violated the CPR. She averred that the intention for filing the falsification cases
was to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of lands in the Philippines.

Pending resolution of the case by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, complainant executed and filed an Affidavit
of Desistance. As a consequence, the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the
complaint.

ISSUE: Should the case be dismissed based on the affidavit of desistance?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the cases should not be dismissed on the basis of the affidavits of desistance.
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Their main purpose is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to
continue acting as an officer of the court and as participant in the dispensation of justice. Administrative proceedings
are imbued with public interest. Hence, these proceedings should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices
of complainants who are only witnesses in the disbarment proceedings.

As to the merits of the complaint and the counter-complaint, the Court found that the respondent did not
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. The constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of lands is
irrelevant in the criminal complaints for falsification. On the other hand, the counter-complaint against complainant,
for violation of the Notarial Law, is meritorious. The evidence on record sufficiently showed that Derek could not
have appeared before complainant on the day the Affidavit of Waiver was notarized. As a consequence of the
violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Yumul-Espina from the practice of
law for six months, revoked her imcumbent commission as a notary public, and prohibited her from being
commissioned as a notary public for two years.
 March 24, 2015

A.C. No. 10132

HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO represented by DAVID ALILANO, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,Respondent .

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Spouses Pedro and Florentina Alilano were holders of an original certificate of title over a parcel of land in Sultan
Kudarat. The spouses Alilano executed Absolute Deeds of Sale in favor of spouses Ramon and Edna Examen. The
deeds were notarized by respondent Atty. Examen, brother of the vendee.

After the death of Spouses Alilano, their heirs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the land covered by the
aforementioned deeds of sale. The heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen violated the
notarial law when he notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a
document when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity within the
second civil degree.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended the penalty of disbarment. However, the IBP
Board of Governors modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and a
suspension of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission for a period of two years.

ISSUE: Should Atty. Examen be administratively liable?

RULING:

The law in force at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative Code, which removed the prohibition against
notarizing a document when one of the parties therein is a relative. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to notarize
the document even if one of the parties to the deed was a relative, his brother.

However, Atty. Examen is still administratively liable. In this case, it is clear that the residence certificate number
used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the
residence certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate number. To say that it was his secretary’s fault
reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who personally
acknowledges the document.

As penalty for violating the Notarial Law, the Court suspended Atty. Examen from the practice of law for two years
and revoked his present notarial commission, and DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years.

A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015

GABRIELA CORONEL, Petitioner, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN, Respondent.

DECISION
 BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:

The complainant alleged that Atty. Cunanan advised and convinced her to engage him for the transfer of land
titles, which were registered in the name of her deceased grandparents, to her name and her co-heirs by direct
registration with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It was also alleged that Atty. Cunanan received from her the
amount of P70,000.00 for the payment of the transfer and other fees, and had misappropriated the same; and that he
had not returned the money and the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title.

Pending resolution of the IBP-CBD, complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance,9 whereby she stated that she
had meanwhile made amends with the respondent. However, the IBP-CBD and the Board of Governors found the
respondent guilty of malpractice and negligence.

ISSUE: Should the Atty. Cunanan be held administratively liable despite the complainant’s execution of an affidavit
of desistance?

RULING:

Yes. In this case, the respondent proposed the option of "direct registration" despite being fully aware that such
option was actually a shortcut intended to circumvent the law, and thus patently contrary to law. The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.16 He shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct;17 or counsel or abet activities aimed at a defiance of the law or at a lessening of confidence in the legal
system.18 He should advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not
recommend to his client any recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and public
morals.

As a consequence, Atty. Cunanan was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was ordered to return
to the complainant the amounts received by him.

A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016

DATU BUDENCIO E. DUMANLAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. WINSTON B. INTONG, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Complainant claims to be a leader of the Indigenous People of Bangcud, Malaybalay and the President of the
Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier's Mining Prospectors and Location
Corporation. He received a letter from the respondent requesting his presence in the latter’s law office for the
settlement and pre-litigation conference prior to any legal action between the complainant and the respondent’s
clients, the spouses Ajoc. Complainant took offense with the letter, saying that the respondent intended that his
law office be one of the courts and investigate him thereat. Complainant also claims that the Atty. Intong charges
exorbitant notarization fees.

The IBP Board of Governors suspended Atty. Intong from the practice of law for six (6) months in view of his
propensity to ignore the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD.

ISSUE: Should Atty. Intong be penalized for his continuous disregard of the orders of the Court?
RULING:

The Supreme Court held that Atty. Intong cannot be held liable for the letter sent to the complainant because
there was nothing wrong, therefore, with respondent's efforts to set up a conference between complainant and his
clients in view of the duty of the lawyer to encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit
of a fair settlement under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As to the alleged exorbitant
notarization fees, the same deserves scant consideration in view of complainant's failure to offer corroborative proof
to support his bare allegations.

However, the respondent cannot escape accountability for his repetitive disregard of the resolutions of the Court
requiring him to file his comment to the complaint and to pay the fine imposed upon him for his failure to do so.
Hence, the Court reprimanded respondent Atty. Winston B. Intong (respondent) for refusing to obey lawful orders of
the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016

DATU REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES,
JR., COMMISSIONERS LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ATTYS. MA.
JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ, ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA, MA. JUANA S. VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND
FERNANDO F. COT-OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:

Duque filed a complaint against the respondents for alleged violation of the election laws. Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Noel S. Adion recommended that the complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction as the COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all
election offenses, and to prosecute the same.

The records of the case were then forwarded to the COMELEC, which also dismissed the complaint pointing out
that Duque failed to substantiate the complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Aggrieved, complainant filed the
instant disbarment complaint against Commissioners Brillantes, et al.

ISSUE: Should the COMELEC officers be disbarred?

RULING:

The Court found no merit in the instant petition. The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that an impeachable officer
who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. At the time the present complaint
was filed, respondents-commissioners were all lawyers. As impeachable officers who are at the same time the
members of the Bar, respondents-commissioners must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of
impeachment before they may be held to answer administratively for their supposed erroneous resolutions and
actions. The Court also noted that there are no no specific actuations and sufficient evidence to show that
respondents did engage in dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in their capacity as lawyers.

A.C. No. 9259 August 23, 2012

JASPER JUNNO F. RODICA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MANUEL "LOLONG" M. LAZARO, ATTY. EDWIN M. ESPEJO, ATTY. ABEL M. ALMARIO, ATTY. MICHELLE B.
LAZARO, ATTY. JOSEPH C. TAN, and JOHN DOES, Respondents.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*

PERLAS-BERNABE,**

This disbarment case was filed by Rodica, the live-in partner of William Strong (Strong), an American, who was
arrested and detained by the operatives of the Bureau of Immigration. Rodica had a previously filed a case for
recovery of possession of a property in Boracay against Hillview Marketing Corporation. Rodica alleged that in a
meeting with the respondents, Atty. Manuel allegedly informed Rodica that Atty. Tan, the counsel of Hillview
Marketing Corp., admitted having initiated the immigration case resulting in the detention of Strong; that Atty. Tan
threatened to do something bad against Rodica and her family; and that Atty. Tan demanded for Rodica to
withdraw the RTC case as part of a settlement package.

Rodica alleged that after the deportation of Strong and the withdrawal of the RTC case, she heard nothing from
the Lazaro Law Office. She also claimed that contrary to her expectations, there was no "simultaneous over-all
settlement of her grievances x x x [with] the defendants [in the RTC] case. 12 Thinking that she was deceived, Rodica
filed the instant administrative case.

Issue: Are the allegations in Rodica’s Complaint merit the disbarment or suspension of respondents?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the totality of evidence presented by Rodica failed to overcome the said presumption
of innocence. In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer continues and
the complaint against him must be dismissed.

The Court stated that it is highly inconceivable for Atty. Tan and the Lazaro Law Office to concoct the scheme of
"pressuring" Rodica to withdraw the RTC case for the purpose of expediting the deportation proceedings of Strong.
The following facts are undisputed: (1) Rodica’s counsel of record in the RTC is Atty. Ibutnande; (2) the RTC case
was already dismissed in the Order22 of March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action; (3) on April 18, 2011,
Rodica through her counsel of record filed a Motion for Reconsideration; (4) on May 5, 2011, Strong was arrested
and detained pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice; (5) Strong hired the Lazaro Law Office to handle his deportation
case; (6) on May 19, 2011 Strong filed a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to voluntarily leave the country; (7)
the Bureau of Immigration rendered a Judgment 23 dated May 25, 2011 granting Strong’s motion to voluntarily
leave the country; (8) Strong left the country on May 31, 2011; (9) Rodica’s Manifestation with Motion to
Withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration was filed on June 6, 2011; and, (8) acting on the said Manifestation with
Motion, the RTC on June 14, 2011 issued an Order24 granting the same.

A.C. No. 10465, June 08, 2016

SPOUSES LAMBERTO V. EUSTAQUIO AND GLORIA J. EUSTAQUIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR R.

NAVALES, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Complainants alleged that they leased their apartment in Quezon City to respondent under a Contract of Lease.
However, respondent violated the terms of the contract when he failed to pay monthly rentals in the aggregate
amount of P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased premises despite repeated oral and written demands. This prompted
complainants to refer the matter to barangay conciliation, where the parties agreed on an amicable settlement. The
respondent promised to pay complainants the amount of P131,000.00 on July 16, 2009 and to vacate the leased
premises on July 31, 2009. Respondent eventually reneged on his obligations under the settlement agreement,
constraining complainants to file an ejectment case4 against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

During the pendency of the case, respondent was appointed as an Assistant City Public Prosecutor of Quezon City.
The Supreme Court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. However,
respondent continued to holding his position as Assistant City Prosecutor.

ISSUE: Should the respondent be administratively liable?

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court SUSPENDED the respondent from the practice of law for an additional period of six (6)
months from his original six (6)-month suspension, totalling one (1) year from service of the Decision.

when the Court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing all functions
requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding a
position in government requiring the authority to practice law.24 The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It includes
performing acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

A.C. No. 7472

March 30, 2010

LIGAYA MANIAGO,

Complainant

Versus

ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS,

Respondent.

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that she filed a criminal case against Hiroshi Miyata, a Japanese national for violation

of Presidential Decree No. 603. The accused was represented by Atty. De Dios. Complainant then learned from the

RTC staff that Atty. De Dios had an outstanding suspension order from the Supreme Court since 2001, and was,

therefore, prohibited from appearing in court. Complainant further alleges that there is a civil case and another

special proceedings case filed against Miyata before the RTC, Makati City, where Atty. De Dios appeared as his
counsel. Complainant then filed this administrative case seeking the disbarment of Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios for

engaging in the practice of law despite having been suspended by the Court.

Respondent explained that an administrative case was indeed filed against her, where she was meted the

penalty of 6-month suspension. She served the suspension immediately upon receipt of the Courts Resolution on

May 16, 2001 up to November 16, 2001. In a Manifestation filed on October 19, 2001, respondent formally

informed the Court that she was resuming her practice of law on November 17, 2001, which she actually did.

ISSUE: What are the guidelines to be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer

from the practice of law?

RULING:

The Supreme Court had set the following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order

suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:

1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the

Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;

2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt

thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration

thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;

3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement

with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has

desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his

or her suspension;

4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to

the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or

her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;

5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the

order of suspension;

6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be

a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be

warranted.