HEENAN vs. ESPEJO
Moya II, We explained
Sometime in January 2009, Victoria met Atty. Espejo
through her godmother, Corazon Eusebio (Corazon).
Following the introduction, Corazon told Victoria that
Atty. Espejo was her lawyer in need of money and
wanted to borrow two hundred fifty thousand pesos
(PhP 250,000) from her (Victoria). Shortly thereafter,
Victoria went to the house of Corazon for a meeting
with Atty. Espejo where they discussed the terms of
the loan. Since Atty. Espejo was introduced to her as
her godmother’s lawyer, Victoria found no reason to
distrust the former. Hence, during the same meeting,
Victoria agreed to accomodate Atty. Espejo and there
and then handed to the latter the amount of PhP
250,000. To secure the payment of the loan, Atty.
Espejo simultaneously issued and turned over to
Victoria a check1dated February 2, 2009 for two
hundred seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP 275,000)
covering the loan amount and agreed interest. On
due date, Atty. Espejo requested Victoria to delay the
deposit of the check for the reason that she was still
waiting for the release of the proceeds of a bank loan
to fund the check.
When Atty. Espejo still refused to pay, Victoria filed a
criminal complaint against Atty. Espejo.
Moreover, respondent[’s] acts of issuing checks with
insufficient funds and despite repeated demands
[she] failed to comply with her obligation and her
disregard and failure to appear for preliminary
investigation and to submit her counter-affidavit to
answer the charges against her for Estafa and
Violation of BP 22, constitute grave misconduct that
also warrant disciplinary action against respondent.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Espejo guilty of gross misconduct
as violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
RULING: We sustain the findings of the IBP and
adopt its recommendation in part.1âwphi1 Atty.
Espejo did not deny obtaining a loan from Victoria or
traverse allegations that she issued unfunded checks
to pay her obligation. It has already been settled that
the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned.16
Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform
their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
their clients. In Tomlin II v.
that the prompt payment of financial obligations is
one of the duties of a lawyer. The fact that Atty.
Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless
checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney
of Victoria is of no moment. As We have held in
several cases, a lawyer may be disciplined not only
for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but
also for gross misconduct outside of his professional
capacity. While the Court may not ordinarily
discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his
non- professional or private capacity, the Court may
be justified in suspending or removing him as an
attorney where his misconduct outside of the
lawyer’s professional dealings is so gross in character
as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the law confer.
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Erlinda B.
Espejo GUILTY of gross misconduct and violating
Canons 1, 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for two (2) years affective
immediately.
CAMPOS vs. CAMPOS
Before this Court is a complain for disbarment1 on
grounds of serious misconduct, immorality and
dishonesty filed against Atty. Eliseo M. Campos
(Eliseo), former presiding judge of the Municipal Trial
Court of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. The complainants
herein are his wife, Aida R. Campos (Aida), and their
children, Alistair R. Campos (Alistair) and Charmaine
R. Campos (Charmaine). In 1999, Eliseo purchased by
installment a 936-square meter lot (the property) in
Bayugan, Agusan del Sur from a certain Renato
Alimpoos. Eliseo thereafter applied for the issuance
of a title in Alistair’s name. Alistair was then a student
without an income and a capacity to buy the
property. In 2006, Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. P-28258 covering the property was issued in
Alistair’s name. Meanwhile, Alistair got married and
his wife and child likewise resided in Eliseo’s house
until 2008.2
On July 16, 2008, Eliseo filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Branch 7, a
Petition3for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. He
alleged that both he and Aida are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with essential marital
obligations. He claimed that during the first few days
of their marriage, he realized that he finds no
gratification in engaging in sexual intercourse with his
wife. He alleged that he is a homosexual. He also
averred that Aida experienced severe pain when she
delivered Alistair. Consequently, Aida no longer
wanted to bear children. He likewise ascribed acts of
infidelity to Aida.
On September 10, 2008, Eliseo executed an Affidavit
of Loss4 wherein he represented himself as the owner
of the property covered by OCT No. P-28258. He
declared that he unknowingly lost the owner’s
certificate of title which used to be in his files. On
November 26, 2008, Alistair filed before the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur
a complaint for perjury8 against Eliseo. Alistair stated
that the owner’s copy of OCT No. P-28258 was in his
possession. Eliseo was aware of such fact, but he still
deliberately and maliciously asserted a falsehood. On
February 11, 2009, Aida filed a Complaint13 for Legal
Separation, Support and Separation of Conjugal
Properties against Eliseo. Aida alleged that Eliseo
confessed under oath that he is a homosexual.
However, Eliseo, in effect, contradicted the said
confession when he admitted to Alistair and
Charmaine that he was then intimately involved with
another woman. Aida likewise claimed that Eliseo is
temperamental and had stopped giving support to
their family.
ISSUE: whether or not [Eliseo] committed serious
misconduct sufficient to cause his disbarment. The
determination of [Eliseo’s] culpability is dependent
on the following: 1. whether or not [Eliseo] was
dishonest with regards to the statements he made in
his Petition for Annulment. [Corollarily] whether or
not [Eliseo] is guilty of immoral conduct; 2. Whether
or not the statements raised in the Affidavit of Loss
concerning the certificate of title of the Campos’
property were untrue; and 3. Whether or not [Eliseo]
choked his daughter, Charmaine, during the amicable
settlement of the annulment case in the (sic) Judge
Casal’s (sic) chambers.
RULING: The Commission finds in the negative. Gross
or serious misconduct has been defined as "any
inexcusable, shameful and flagrant unlawful conduct
on the part of the person concerned in the
administration of justice which is prejudicial to the
rights of the parties or to the right determination of a
cause, a conduct that is generally motivated by a
predetermined, obstinate or intentional purpose
(Yumol, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr., 456 SCRA 457). In the
instant disbarment complaint, tirades and bare
accusations were exchanged.1âwphi1 It bears
stressing that not one of the parties had presented
even one independent witness to prove what
transpired inside the chamber of Judge Casals on
September 14, 2009. That a scuffle took place is a
fact, but the question of who started what cannot be
determined with much certainty.
While admitting his engagement in the scuffle, Eliseo
vigorously attempts to justify his conduct as self-
defense on his part.36
While this Court finds credence and logic in Eliseo’s
narration of the incident, and understands that the
successive acts of the parties during the tussle were
committed at a time when passions ran high, he shall
not be excused for comporting himself in such an
undignified manner.
Further, albeit not raised as an issue, this Court views
with disfavor Eliseo’s statement during the hearing
conducted by the CBD on March 18, 2011 that he
doubts Alistair to be his biologiocal son.42 As a lawyer,
Eliseo is presumably aware that ascribing illegitimacy
to Alistair in a proceeding not instituted for that
specific purpose is nothing short of defamation.
All told, Eliseo violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility when he
conducted himself in a manner not befitting a
member of the bar by engaging in the scuffle with his
own children in the chamber of Judge Casals on
September 14, 2009 and recklessly expressing his
doubt anent the legitimacy of his son Alistair during
the hearing before the CBD.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds that respondent Eliseo
M. Campos violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. A FINE of Five
Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) is hereby imposed
upon him, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Re: Letter of atty. Cecilio Arevalo Jr
This is a request for exemption from payment of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues filed
by petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.
 In his letter,[1] dated 22 September 2004,
petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP
dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid
accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged
that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in
1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service
from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and
worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his
retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he
cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was
working in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil
Service law prohibits the practice of ones profession
while in government service, and neither can he be
assessed for the years when he was working in the
USA.
ISSUE: whether or nor petitioner is entitled to
exemption from payment of his dues during the time
that he was inactive in the practice of law that is,
when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and
he was working abroad from 1986-2003?
RULING: The Supreme Court, in order to foster the
States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost
of improving the profession in this fashion be shared
by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory
program the lawyers.[7]
Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution
that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional
power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the
admission to the practice of law and in the
integration of the Philippine Bar[8] - which power
required members of a privileged class, such as
lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying
the expenses of regulation of the profession to which
they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is,
indeed, imposed as a regulatory measure, designed
to raise funds for carrying out the noble objectives
and purposes of integration. WHEREFORE, petitioners
request for exemption from payment of IBP dues is
DENIED. He is ordered to pay P12,035.00, the amount
assessed by the IBP as membership fees for the years
1977-2005, within a non-extendible period of ten (10)
days from receipt of this decision, with a warning that
failure to do so will merit his suspension from the
practice of law.
Letter of U.P faculty entitled restoring integrity; a
statement of the university of the phil. College of
law on the allegation of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the S.C
Allegations of this intellectual offense were
hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R.
Bagares against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for
his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010. In said
case, the Court denied the petition for certiorari filed
by Filipino comfort women to compel certain officers
of the executive department[2] to espouse their claims
for reparation and demand apology from the
Japanese government for the abuses committed
against them by the Japanese soldiers during World
War II. Attys. Roque and Bagares represent the
comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary,
which is presently the subject of a motion for
reconsideration. Essentially, the faculty of the UP
College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic
M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo in the face of allegations of
plagiarism in his work. Notably, while the statement
was meant to reflect the educators opinion on
the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del
Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an
established fact, but a truth. In particular, they
expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillos
explanation on how he cited the primary sources of
the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary
conclusion to those of the authors of the articles
supposedly plagiarized. he Court could hardly
perceive any reasonable purpose for the facultys less
than objective comments except to discredit the April
28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya  case and undermine
the Courts honesty, integrity and competence in
addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if
the case on the comfort womens claims is not
controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan
the flames and invite resentment against a resolution
that would not reverse the said decision. This runs
contrary to their obligation as law professors and
officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the
dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe
fidelity according to the oath they have taken as
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice.
ISSUE: Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions
constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and
Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.  Professional Responsibility. Judge Baculi filed a
RULING: members of the faculty of the University of
the Philippines College of Law, are directed to SHOW
CAUSE, within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of
this Resolution, why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar for violation of Canons 10, 11,
and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Further, Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen is
directed to SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from
receipt of this Resolution, why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon 10,
Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting, through
his letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency
of G.R. No. 162230, Vinuya v. Executive Secretary and
of the investigation before the Committee on Ethics
and Ethical Standards, for the consideration of the
Court En Banc,  a dummy which is not a true and
faithful reproduction of the purported statement,
entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the
Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of
Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Enclosed
are copies of the said dummy and signed statement,
respectively, attached to the said letter dated August
10, 2010 and to the Compliance dated August 31,
2010 filed by Roque & Butuyan Law Offices with the
Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards. Let this
matter be DOCKETED as a regular administrative
matter. Let service of this Resolution upon the above-
named UP College of Law faculty members be
effected by personal delivery. (CASE IS ONGOING).
Baculi vs. Battung
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for
disbarment[2] with the Commission on Discipline of
the IBP against the respondent, alleging that the
latter violated Canons 11[3] and 12[4] of the Code of
complaint for disbarment[2] with the Commission on
Discipline of the IBP against the respondent, alleging
that the latter violated Canons 11 [3] and 12[4] of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He kept on
shouting and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff
and lawyers escorted him out of the building. [7] Judge
Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the
courtroom, he continued shouting and punched a
table at the Office of the Clerk of Court. he IBP
conducted its investigation of the matter through
Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. In his
[11]
Commissioners Report,  Commissioner De la Rama
stated that during the mandatory conference on
January 16, 2009, both parties merely reiterated
what they alleged in their submitted pleadings. Both
parties agreed that the original copy of the July 24,
2008 tape of the incident at the courtroom would be
submitted for the Commissioners review. Judge
Baculi submitted the tape and the transcript of
stenographic notes on January 23, 2009.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is
guilty of violating Rule 11.03,Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for insulti ng a
judge in his courtroom.
 RULING: We agree with the IBPs finding that
the respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Battung
disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside
the courtroom during court proceedings in the
presence of litigants and their counsels, and court
personnel. The respondent even came back to harass
Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many
witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the
respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and
acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for
his position even after the latter had cited him for
contempt. In fact, after initially leaving the court, the
respondent returned to the courtroom and disrupted
the ongoing proceedings. These actions were not
only against the person, the position and the stature
of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose
proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted,
and brought to disrepute by the respondent. it is the
duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to uphold
the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for
the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial
institution; without this guarantee, the institution
would be resting on very shaky foundations.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a
courtroom completely disregards the latters role,
stature and position in our justice system. When the
respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened
Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross
ignorance of the law against the latter, the
respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to
erode the public confidence in Judge Baculis
competence and in his ability to decide cases.
Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be
handled with sensitivity in the manner provided
under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining
lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in
a bad light and bring the justice system into
disrepute. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
Atty. Melchor A. Battung is found GUILTY of violating
Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year effective upon the
finality of this Decision. He is STERNLY WARNED that
a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
SAMSON vs. ERA
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for
disbarment charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era
with violation of his trust and confidence of a client
by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his
present client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted
with his interest. Samson and his relatives were
among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding
scam perpetrated by ICS Exports, Inc. Exporter,
Importer, and Multi-Level Marketing Business (ICS
Corporation), a corporation whose corporate officers
were led by Sison. The other officers, Samson
engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his
relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her
group. Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his
relatives to discuss the possibility of an amicable
settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He told
Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the
cases would just be a waste of time, money and
effort for them, and that they could settle the cases
with Sison and her group, with him guaranteeing the
turnover to them of a certain property located in
Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in
exchange for their desistance. Samson and his
relatives later demanded from Atty. Era that they be
given instead a deed of absolute sale to enable them
to liquidate the property among themselves. When
Samson and his co-complainants verified the title of
the property at the Registry of Deeds and the
Assessor’s Office of Antipolo City, they were
dismayed to learn that they could not liquidate the
property because it was no longer registered under
the name of ICS Corporation but was already under
the name of Bank Wise Inc. Samson executed an
affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents, and
praying for Atty. Era’s disbarment on the ground of
his violation of the trust, confidence and respect
reposed in him as their counsel.
ISSUE: W O N
A tt y .   E r a   v i o l a t e d   t h e   C o d e   o f   pro
fessional Responsibility on conflict of interests.
RULING: Atty. Era’s contention that the lawyer-client
relationship ended when Samson and his group
entered into the compromise settlement with Sison
on April 23, 2002 was unwarranted. The lawyer-client
relationship did not terminate as of then, for the fact
remained that he still needed to oversee the
implementation of the settlement as well as to
proceed with the criminal cases until they were
dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It
is also relevant to indicate that the execution of a
compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not
ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only
because the approval of the compromise by the trial
court was still required, but also because the
compromise would have applied only to the civil
aspect, and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to
Article 2034 of the Civil Code. The lawyer’s highest
and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client
at all hazards and costs even to himself.35The
protection given to the client is perpetual and does
not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is
it affected by the client’s ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even survives
the death of the client. WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS
and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of
violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS
him from the practice of law for two years effective
upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning that
his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
Pacana Jr vs Pascual-lopez
This case stems from an administrative complaint
filed by Rolando Pacana, Jr. against Atty. Maricel
Pascual-Lopez charging the latter with flagrant
violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complainant alleges that respondent
committed acts constituting conflict of interest,
dishonesty, influence peddling, and failure to render
an accounting of all the money and properties
received by her from complainant. According to
complainant, in mid-2002, Multitel was besieged by
demand letters from its members and investors
because of the failure of its investment schemes. He
alleges that he earned the ire of Multitel investors
after becoming the assignee of majority of the shares
of stock of Precedent and after being appointed as
trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos
(P30,000,000.00) deposited at Real Bank. In sum,
complainant avers that a lawyer-client relationship
was established between him and respondent
although no formal document was executed by them
at that time. A Retainer Agreement[4] dated January
15, 2003 was proposed by respondent. Complainant,
however, did not sign the said agreement because
respondent verbally asked for One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as acceptance fee and
a 15% contingency fee upon collection of the
overpayment made by Multitel to Benefon.
Complainant found the proposed fees to be
prohibitive and not within his means.[6] Hence, the
retainer agreement remained unsigned. Soon,
complainant noticed that respondent began to avoid
communicating with him. Complainant then wrote to
respondent a letter formally asking for a full accounting of all
the money, documents and properties given to the latter but
respondent failed to provide a clear audited financial report of
all the properties turned over by the complainant to the
respondent. Complainant filed an affidavit to complaint against
respondent before the Commission on bar discipline of the
integrated bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of
respondent.
ISSUE: WON a lawyer -client relationship has created.
RULING: After due hearing, IBP Investigating
Commissioner Patrick M. Velez issued a Report and
Recommendation[40] finding that a lawyer-client
relationship was established between respondent
and complainant despite the absence of a written
contract. The Investigating Commissioner also
declared that respondent violated her duty to be
candid, fair and loyal to her client when she allowed
herself to represent conflicting interests and failed to
render a full accounting of all the cash and properties
entrusted to her. Based on these grounds, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended her
disbarment. The resolution of the administrative case
filed against respondent is necessary in order to
determine the degree of her culpability and liability
to complainant. The case may not be dismissed or
rendered moot and academic by respondents act of
voluntarily terminating her membership in the Bar
regardless of the reason for doing so. This is because
membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions.[58] The conduct of a lawyer may make him
or her civilly, if not criminally, liable to his client or to
third parties, and such liability may be conveniently
avoided if this Court were to allow voluntary
termination of membership. Hence, to terminate
ones membership in the Bar voluntarily, it is
imperative that the lawyer first prove that the
voluntary withdrawal of membership is not a ploy to
further prejudice the public or to evade liability. No
such proof exists in the present case. WHEREFORE,
respondent Attorney Maricel Pascual-Lopez is
hereby DISBARRED for representing conflicting
interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and
deceitful conduct in violation of her Lawyers Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Trenas vs People
Sometime in December 1999, Margarita
Alocilja (Margarita) wanted to buy a house-
and-lot in Iloilo City. It was then mortgaged
with Maybank. The bank manager Joselito
Palma recommended the appellant Hector
Treas (Hector) to private complainant
Elizabeth, who was an employee and niece of
Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of
the title in the latters name. Hector informed
Elizabeth that for the titling of the property in
the name of her aunt Margarita. Thereafter,
Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who
issued a corresponding receipt and prepared
[a] Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage. Subsequently, Hector gave
Elizabeth Revenue Official Receipt Nos.
00084370 for P96,000.00 and 00084369 for
P24,000.00. However, when she consulted
with the BIR, she was informed that the
receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector
admitted to her that the receipts were fake
and that he used the P120,000.00 for his
other transactions. Elizabeth demanded the
return of the money. To settle his accounts,
appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a
Bank of Commerce check in the amount of
P120,000.00, deducting from P150,000.00 the
P30,000.00 as attorneys fees. When the check
was deposited the same was dishonored for
the reason that the account was closed.
Notwithstanding repeated formal and verbal
demands, appellant failed to pay. Thus, the
instant case of Estafa was filed against him.
Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the
evidence presented by the prosecution does
it show that ₱150,000 was given to and
received by petitioner in Makati City. Instead,
the evidence shows that the Receipt issued by
petitioner for the money was dated 22
December 1999, without any indication of the
place where it was issued. Meanwhile, the
Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage
prepared by petitioner was signed and
notarized in Iloilo City, also on 22 December
1999. Petitioner claims that the only logical
conclusion is that the money was actually
delivered to him in Iloilo City, especially since
his residence and office were situated there
as well. Absent any direct proof as to the
place of delivery, one must rely on the
disputable presumption that things happened
according to the ordinary course of nature.
ISSUE: Whether RTC Makati has jurisdiction
over the controversy?
 RULING: The place where the crime was
committed determines not only the venue of the
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is
a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be
acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense
should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients should have taken place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense allegedly committed therein by the accused.
Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed outside
of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction
of a court over the criminal case is determined by
the allegations in the complaint or information. And
once it is so shown, the court may validly take
cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should
dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. In this
case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense
of estafa under Section 1, paragraph (b) of Article 315
of the RPC was committed within the jurisdiction of
the RTC of Makati City. Aside from the lone allegation
in the Information, no other evidence was presented
by the prosecution to prove that the offense or any of
its elements was committed in Makati City. There is
nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the
prosecution[23] that points to where the offense, or
any of its elements, was committed. There being no
showing that the offense was committed within
Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over
the case. As such, there is no more need to discuss
the other issue raised by petitioner. The Decision
dated 9 July 2010 and the Resolution dated 4 January
2011 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
32177 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 137, Makati City. Criminal Case No. 01-2409
is DISMISSEDwithout prejudice. This case
is REFERRED to the IBP Board of Governors for
investigation and recommendation pursuant to
Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
San pedro vs. Mendoza
On or about November 21, 1996, complainants
engaged the services of respondent to facilitate the
transfer of title to property, in the name of Isabel
Azcarraga Marcaida, to complainants.2 Complainants
then gave respondent a check for ₱68,250.00 for the
payment of transfer taxes.3 They also gave
respondent a check for ₱13,800.00 for respondent’s
professional fee.4 Respondent failed to produce the
title despite complainants’ repeated follow-ups.
Complainants subsequently referred the case to the
barangay.7 Respondent refused to return the amount
complainants gave for the transfer
taxes.8 Complainants were then issued a certificate to
file action.9 They also sent a letter demanding the
refund of the money intended for the transfer
taxes.10 Respondent still did not return the money.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of violating
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for failing tohold in trust the money of his clients
RULING: After considering the parties’ arguments and
the records of this case, this court resolves to adopt
and approve the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-
839 dated June 22, 2013 of the IBP Board of
Governors. An examination of the records reveals
that respondent violated the Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. An attorney’s retaining
lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following
elements concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2)
lawful possession of the client’s funds, documents
and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney’s
fees. Further, the attorney’s retaining lien is a general
lien for the balance of the account between the
attorney and his client, and applies to the documents
and funds of the client which may come into the
attorney’s possession in the course of his
employment. Furthermore, assuming that
respondent had proven all the requisites for a valid
retaining lien, he cannot appropriate for himself his
client's funds without the proper accounting and
notice to the client. The rule is that when there is "a
disagreement, or when the client disputes the
amount claimed by the lawyer . . . the lawyer should
not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the
payment of his fees .... ". WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Isagani A. Mendoza is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) months. He is also
ordered to RETURN to complainants the amount of
₱68,250.00 with 6% legal interest from the date of
finality of this judgment until full payment.
Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to this
court proof of payment of the amount within 10 days
from payment.
NAVARRO vs. SOLIDUM JR.
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Natividad P.
Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero against Atty. Ivan M.
Solidum, Jr. Presbitero’s daughter, Ma. Theresa P.
Yulo (Yulo), also engaged respondent’s services to
handle the registration of her lot. Yulo convinced her
sister, Navarro, to finance the expenses for the
registration of the property. Navarro later learned
that the registration decree over the property was
already issued in the name of one Teodoro
Yulo. Meanwhile, respondent obtained a loan of
₱1,000,000 from Navarro to finance his sugar trading
business. Respondent and Navarro executed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and agreed that
respondent shall issue postdated checks to cover the
principal amount of the loan as well as the interest
thereon. Complainants alleged that respondent
induced them to grant him loans by offering very high
interest rates. He also prepared and signed the
checks which turned out to be drawn against his
son’s accounts. Complainants further alleged that
respondent deceived them regarding the identity and
value of the property he mortgaged because he
showed them a different property from that which he
owned. Presbitero further alleged that respondent
mortgaged his 263-square-meter property to her for
₱1,000,000 but he later sold it for only ₱150,000. The
IBP-CBD found that respondent was guilty of violating
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for committing the following acts:
(1) signing drawn checks against the account
of his son as if they were from his own
account;
(2) misrepresenting to Navarro the identity of
the lot he mortgaged to her;
(3) misrepresenting to Presbitero the true
value of the 263-square-meter lot he
mortgaged to her;
(4) conspiring with Yulo to obtain the loans
from complainants;
(5) agreeing or promising to pay 10% interest
on his loans although he knew that it was
exorbitant; and
(6) failing to pay his loans because the checks
he issued were dishonored as the accounts
were already closed.
ISSUE: Whether respondent violated the Code of
Responsibility.
RULING: The records show that respondent violated
at least four provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16. - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.04. - A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
Our findings have no material bearing on other
judicial action which the parties may choose to file
against each other.11 Nevertheless, when a lawyer
receives money from a client for a particular purpose
involving the client-attorney relationship, he is bound
to render an accounting to the client showing that
the money was spent for that particular purpose.12 If
the lawyer does not use the money for the intended
purpose, he must immediately return the money to
his client.13 Respondent was given an opportunity to
render an accounting, and he failed. He must return
the full amount of the advances given him by
Presbitero, amounting to ₱50,000. WHEREFORE, the
Court finds Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr. GUILTY of
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, the Court DISBARS him from the practice
of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this
Decision. Atty. Solidum is ORDERED to return the
advances he received from Hilda S. Presbitero,
amounting to ₱50,000, and to submit to the Office of
the Bar Confidant his compliance with this order
within thirty days from finality of this Decision.
Foster vs Antang
CHECK MO TO MAIGI ATENG, WALA AKONG
MAKITANG GANYAN TITLE NG CASE, PATI UNG SCRA
NO. WLA….
Hernandez vs Agoncillo
The instant petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court arose from a Complaint
for Damages filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Parafiaque City against herein petitioner
and one Freddie Apawan Verwin. Defendant Hector
Hernandez is x x x the owner of the delivery van
which is the subject matter of the above-entitled
case. He is doing business under the name of Cargo
Solution Innovation and is the employer of Defendant
Fredie Apawan Verwin.
Defendant Fredie Apawan Verwin was driving a
delivery van belonging to a certain Hector Hernandez,
and negligently backed against a Honda City. That
after a brief discussion of the incident, Defendant
driver went back to his van and stepped on the gas
which caused the van to move abruptly forward and
resulted to the disengagement of the bumper of
Plaintiff's car and damage to the car radiator, and as a
consequence, the Plaintiff's car was towed. Right
after the incident, Plaintiff made various demands
from Defendants, thru the secretary of the Cargo
Solution Innovation or C.S.I., the company which the
driver of the van was working for, to pay the actual
damages sustained, but to Plaintiff's dismay her
demands were unheeded. Considering the character
of Defendant driver's negligence, together with the
malicious refusal to pay actual damages of both
Defendants and Plaintiff's experience of sleepless
nights and anxiety because of the incident,
Defendants should be held liable for moral damages.
the MeTC issued a Summons Under Summary
Procedure. petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion for
Extension of Time to File His Answer. MeTC issued an
Order6 denying petitioner's Ex Parte Motion for
Extension of Time holding that the said Motion was
filed beyond the reglementary period. WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff
Susan San Pedro Agoncillo and against the defendant
Hector Hernandez
ISSUE: WON the CA Is accord in with applicable
decisions of SC.
RULING: It must be emphasized, however, that it is
not mandatory on the part of the trial court to admit
an Answer which is belatedly filed where the
defendant is not yet declared in default. Settled is the
rule that it is within the discretion of the trial court to
permit the filing of an answer even beyond the
reglementary period, provided that there is
justification for the belated action and there is no
showing that the defendant intended to delay the
case. In the instant case, the MeTC found it proper
not to admit petitioner's Answer and to subsequently
declare him in default, because petitioner's Ex Parte
Motion for Extension of Time to File His Answer was
filed out of time; that petitioner filed his Answer
beyond the period requested in the Motion for
Extension; and that petitioner failed to appear during
the scheduled hearing on respondent's Motion to
declare him in default. The Court finds no cogent
reason to depart from the above ruling of the MeTC,
as affirmed by the RTC and the CA. WHEREFORE, the
petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The April
29, 2010 Decision and the October 12, 2010
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ceniza vs. Rubia
complainant sought the legal services of the
respondent in regard to the share of her mother-in-
law in the estate of her husband Carlos Ceniza. As she
had no money to pay for attorneys fees since her
mother-in-law would arrive from the United
States only in June 2002, respondent made her sign a
promissory note for P32,000.00, which amount was
lent by Domingo Natavio. After paid the loan,
respondent furnished them a copy of the complaint
for partition and recovery of ownership/possession
representing legitime but with no docket number on
it. They kept on following up the progress of the
complaint. However, three months lapsed before
respondent informed them that it was already filed in
court. It was then that they received a copy of the
complaint with Civil Case No. 4198 and a rubber
stamped RECEIVED thereon. However, when
complainant verified the status of the case with the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del
Sur, she was informed that no case with said title and
docket number was filed. Further, complainant
alleged that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance
of the law for intending to file the complaint in Davao
del Sur when the properties to be recovered were
located in Koronadal, South Cotabato and
Malungon, Sarangani Province, in violation of the rule
on venue that real actions shall be filed in the place
where the property is situated. Complainant also
alleged that respondent forged the signature of her
husband, Carlito C. Ceniza, in the Affidavit of Loss
attached to a petition for the issuance of a new
owners duplicate certificate of title filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Digos City, Branch 20, in
Misc. Case No. 114-2202.
ISSUE: WON there is preponderant evidence to
warrant the imposition of administrative sanction
against the respondent
RULING: A perusal of the records shows that
complainants evidence consists solely of her
Affidavit-Complaint and the annexes attached
therewith. She did not appear in all the mandatory
conferences set by the investigating commissioner in
order to give respondent the chance to test the
veracity of her assertions. It is one thing to allege
gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or falsification
of public document and another to demonstrate by
evidence the specific acts constituting the same.
Thus, for lack of preponderant evidence, the
investigating commissioners ruling that respondent
was guilty of falsification of public document, as
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, has no
factual basis to stand on. However, we find that
respondent committed some acts for which she
should be disciplined or administratively sanctioned.
When a lawyer accepts to handle a case, whether for
a fee or gratis et amore, he undertakes to give his
utmost attention, skill and competence to it,
regardless of its significance. Thus, his client, whether
rich or poor, has the right to expect that he will
discharge his duties diligently and exert his best
efforts, learning and ability to prosecute or defend his
(clients) cause with reasonable dispatch. Failure to
fulfill his duties will subject him to grave
administrative liability as a member of the Bar. For
the overriding need to maintain the faith and
confidence of the people in the legal profession
demands that an erring lawyer should be sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent
Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is found GUILTY of violation of
Rule 18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for six (6) months effective
immediately, with a warning that similar infractions
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Bautista vs Cefra
The complainants were the defendants in Civil Case
No. U-6504 an action for quieting of title, recovery of
possession and damages filed in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 45, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan.2 The complainants engaged the services
of Atty. Cefra to represent them in the proceedings.
According to the complainants, they lost in Civil Case
No. U-6504 because of Atty. Cefra’s negligence in
performing his duties as their counsel. Despite the
extensions of time given by the Court, Atty. Cefra did
not file any comment. He did not also comply with
the Court’s Minute Resolutions,3 dated December 14,
2005 and March 22, 2006, directing him to pay a
₱2,000.00 fine and to submit the required comment.
the Investigating Commissioner of IBP recommended
the dismissal of the complaint. The IBP Board of
Governors found Atty. Cefra negligent in handling the
complainants’ case and unanimously approved his
suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
months. Atty.Cefra filed a motion for reconsideration
which was partly granted and modified from
suspension to reprimand.
ISSUE: WON Atty.Cefra was negligent
RULING: he Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence."10
It further states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."11 In
addition, a lawyer has the corresponding duty to
"keep the client informed of the status of his case."
In Jardin v. Villar, Jr.,13 the Court held:
Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee
or free. Certainly, a member of the Bar who is worth
his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a
lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer’s lethargy from the
perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and
unethical. Atty. Cefra failed to live up to these
standards. Interestingly, he did not deny the
complainants’ allegations and impliedly admitted his
actions in the proceedings in Civil Case No. U-6504.
We significantly note that even before this Court,
Atty. Cefra’s conduct was less than what is expected
of an officer of the Court. He was held in contempt
for his cavalier and indifferent attitude in complying
with the Court’s directives. WHEREFORE, premises
considered, we find Atty. Arturo Cefra guilty of
negligence, in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year
and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Penilla vs alcid jr
Complainant Julian Penilla entered into an agreement
with Spouses Rey and Evelyn Garin (the spouses) for
the repair of his Volkswagen automobile. Despite full
payment, the spouses defaulted in their obligation.
Thus, complainant decided to file a case for breach of
contract against the spouses where he engaged the
services of respondent as counsel. Respondent sent a
demand letter to the spouses and asked for the
refund of complainant’s payment. When the spouses
failed to return the payment, respondent advised
complainant that he would file a criminal case
for estafa against said spouses. Respondent charged
P30,000 as attorney’s fees and P10,000 as filing fees.
Respondent then filed the complaint
for estafa before Asst. City Prosecutor Jose C.
Fortuno of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City. After the hearing, complainant paid
another P1,000 to respondent as appearance fee. 
Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno later issued a resolution
dismissing the estafa case against the spouses.
Respondent allegedly told complainant that a motion
for reconsideration was “needed to have [the
resolution] reversed.”2 Respondent then prepared
the motion and promised complainant that he would
fix the problem. Complainant paid an additional
P10,000 to respondent which he asked for the
payment of filing fees. Complainant claims not
hearing from respondent again despite his several
letters conveying his disappointment and requesting
for the return of the money and the documents in
respondent’s possession Complainant learned that a
civil case for Specific Performance and Damages was
filed on June 6, 20023 but was dismissed on June 13,
2002. He also found out that the filing fee was only
P2,440 and not P10,000 as earlier stated by
respondent. Atty. Aga of the same radio program also
sent respondent a letter calling his attention to
complainant’s problem. The letter, like all of
complainant’s previous letters, was unheeded.
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) the instant administrative case
praying that respondent be found guilty of gross
misconduct for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for
appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated the Laywer’s
Oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility when dealing with his client, Penilla.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated
Canon 17, 18 and Rules 18.03 and18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath
under Canon 18 to
“serve his client with competence and diligence” when he filed
a criminal case for estafa when facts of
the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for
breach of contract. The errors committed withrespect to the
nature of the remedy adopted in the criminal complaint and
the forum selected in the civilcomplaint were so basic and
could have been easily averted has Alcid been more diligent
and circumspectin his role as counsel for complainant. Alciddid
not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases.This is in
violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 which oblige a lawyer to
keep his client informed of thestatus of the case and to respond
with a reasonable time
to the client’s request for informationHe paid noattention and
showed no importance to complainant’s cause despite
repeated follow
-ups. Atty. Alcid, Jr.is not only guilty of incompetence in
handling the cases. The excuse that Alcidproffered, that their
timedid not always coincide, is found by the Court as too lame
and flimsy. His lack of professionalism indealing with
complainant is gross and inexcusable. Alcid also violated Canon
17 which states that alawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposedin him. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere
duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the
highest degree, fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of
client’s interest. The
most thoroughgroundwork and study must be undertaken in
order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr.has
defied and failed to perform such duty and his omission is
tantamount to a desecration of the
Lawyer’s Oath.