Aldea,Ann

Marie
1

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and what Complainant: Ana Maria Kare
(case no. / date) Respondent: Atty. Catalina L. Tumaliuan
AC No. 8777 / 09 October 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the In 2009, Complainant physician sold her house and lot to
circumstances that lead respondent IBP lawyer for P7.1 million pesos and the latter gave a
to file a case) motor vehicle (Toyota Fortuner) that both party agreed to value at
P 900,000 pesos. Complainant and respondent lawyer executed a
Sale of Motor Vehicle and the former received only a photocopy of
the Certificate of Registration (CR) from the latter. Respondent
lawyer has yet to comply with the complainant in end of the
agreement by giving the latter a clean title to said vehicle or even
a document evidencing the release of the same from attachment,
without which, the complainant cannot transfer the house and lot
to respondent lawyer’s name. Despite repeated demands of the
complainant to give to her the original CR, it was to no avail.
Complainant discovered upon checking at the Land Transportation
Office that said vehicle was actually mortgaged in favor of BDO for
a loan obtained by respondent lawyer in 2007 expiring in 2011.
Complainant was not made aware that the motor vehicle was
mortgaged in favor of BDO when she agreed to sell her house and
lot in exchange for cash and the motor vehicle. Also, it was not
indicated in the Sale of Motor Vehicle that the subject vehicle was
actually encumbered and as a result, complainant is greatly
prejudiced because once BDO gains knowledge of the sale, the
vehicle can instantly be taken from her.
Thereafter, complainant charged two complaints against
respondent lawyer for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and for estafa.

Respondent (defenses) Respondent lawyer’s defenses were the following:
1. Complainant was untruthful when she indicated in her
complaint that she was still residing at the house she sold
to respondent lawyer when she already vacated said
address in 2010 and the latter was already residing there.
2. Complainant was at fault when she said that the house
and lot was still registered under her name when the
same was already transferred in the name of GSIS as a
result of the housing loan respondent lawyer obtained
therefrom
 Aldea,Ann Marie
2


3. Complainant was fully aware that the subject vehicle was
mortgaged to BDO for a loan that expires in 2011.
4. Complainant violated the rule against forum shopping
when she filed a complaint before the Office of the City
Prosecutor for estafa involving the same parties and the
same issues.

What is the It is recommended that the respondent lawyer be ordered to
recommendation of the restitute complainant and to transfer full title of the subject vehicle
IBP-CBD? to the latter by causing its registration in the latter’s name at
respondent lawyer’s expense. If such registration is not possible,
it is advised the parties to mutually rescind the contract of sale of
said vehicle with complainant returning the vehicle to respondent
lawyer and respondent lawyer returning the P1,000,000.00
consideration of such sale. Also, they recommended that
respondent lawyer be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months in view of the fact that she has been a
lawyer with good standing and the fact that the nature of her
misrepresentation is not so grave.
What is the Not indicated.
recommendation of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent lawyer should be held administratively
liable.
Dispositive portion (final Yes. The court has held that respondent lawyer is administratively
decision) liable because complainant’s awareness of the encumbrance
cannot be hastily presumed. To illustrate, respondent lawyer
conveniently failed to state in the Deed of Sale of Vehicle which
she herself prepared, the important detail that the vehicle was
already mortgaged in BDO’s favor. Hence, the circumstances in this
case disprove respondent lawyer’s good faith.

The Court only adopted the recommendation of IBP to suspend
respondent lawyer from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year only. Respondent lawyer is found guilty of committing
dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent acts prejudicial to the legal
profession and in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. She is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year with WARNING that a similar
misconduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
What are the core moral Respect for People, Respect for one’s reputation, Respect for
values that were ignored? material things.
What are the virtues that Good faith- In here, respondent lawyer conveniently failed to state
are missing in the Deed of Sale of Vehicle which she herself prepared, the
 Aldea,Ann Marie
3


important detail that the vehicle was already mortgaged in BDO’s
favor.

Honesty- In here, respondent lawyer withheld from the
complainant that the subject vehicle is mortgaged in favor of BDO,
causing damage to the latter.

Integrity- In here, respondent lawyer failed to live by the standards
of the legal profession which requires strong moral fitness when
she made deceptive misrepresentation to complainant.
What are the vices that Untrustworthy –In here, respondent lawyer was not deserving of
the respondent got the trust or confidence of the complainant when the latter agreed
involved in? to accept the motor vehicle of the former as part of the purchase
payment for her house and lot.

Injustice- In here, respondent lawyer’s willful non disclosure of the
existence of the chattel mortgage on the subject vehicle prejudiced
the complainant because once BDO gains knowledge of the sale,
the vehicle can instantly be taken from the latter.

Greed- In here, respondent lawyer defrauded the complainant
because of her excessive desire to acquire or possess a house and
lot (material wealth) and conflict arose because respondent lawyer
cannot give the P 1 Million Pesos cash purchase payment so in
consideration for the amount, she offered her vehicle to the
complainant.

What are the lessons that I I learned the following:
learned from this case so 1. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
that no case of similar can deceitful conduct.
be filed against me in the
future?
2. In disciplinary pleadings against lawyers, the only issue is
whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to
continue as a member of the Bar. The criminal and civil
liabilities must be resolved in separate case(s).

3. I should not use my knowledge and expertise to take
advantage of the ignorance of another or cause an injury to
another.




 LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
Who (parties) and what
Complainant: Marilu C. Turla
(case no. / date) Respondent: Atty. Jose M. Caringal
Aldea,Ann Marie 4
AC No. 11641/12 Mar 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the Complainant is the petitioner in a Special Proceedings before the
circumstances that lead Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, wherein respondent lawyer is
to file a case) the counsel for the oppositor. In July 2010, complainant
discovered that respondent lawyer had not attended the required
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for the
Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III) Compliance Periods which
were from April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007 and April 25 2007 to
April 14, 2010, respectively. Complainant confirmed such
information when she received a Certification dated August 2,
2010 issued by the MCLE Office and confronted respondent lawyer
with his deception by stating on her pleadings of respondent
lawyer’s non-compliance. Yet, respondent lawyer signed 11
different pleadings on which he indicated that he was exempted
from complying with the MCLE II and MCLE III requirements when
what he really paid for was the non-compliance fee and not any
exemption fee.

Thereafter, complainant charged respondent lawyer with failure to
take the MCLE seminars for the MCLE II and III compliance periods
as required under Bar Matter No. 850, and violation of his lawyer’s
oath not to do any falsehood.

Respondent (defenses) Respondent lawyer’s defenses were:

1. Complainant’s charges against respondent lawyer were a
form of harassment.

2. Respondent lawyer had complied with the MCLE
requirements as of Mar 11, 2011, albeit belatedly and
thereby making the issue of his supposed status as a
delinquent member moot.

3. Respondent acted in good faith when he signed numerous

pleadings indicating the wrong details.
What is the It is recommended that respondent lawyer be suspended from the
recommendation of the practice of law for three (3) years due to his failure to comply with
IBP-CBD? the MCLE requirements and because of his misrepresentation that
he had an MCLE exemption.
 Aldea,Ann Marie
5


What is the Not indicated.
recommendation of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not the respondent lawyer committed violation of
non-compliance in the MCLE under Bar Matter No. 850, and
violation of his lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood.

Dispositive portion (final No. Respondent lawyer had already complied with the MCLE
decision) requirements for MCLE II and MCLE III compliance periods, albeit
belatedly. Nevertheless, respondent lawyer is being held liable for
knowingly and willfully in the pleadings he had signed and
submitted to the courts that he was exempted from MCLE II and
MCLE III. Hence, respondent lawyer only violated the lawyer’s oath
not to do any falsehood.

The court DENIED respondent lawyer’s petition and SUSPEND the
respondent lawyer from the practice of law for three (3) years.
What are the core moral Love for truth, Respect for authority, Respect for other people
values that were ignored? and Respect for one’s reputation.
What are the virtues that Truthfulness- In here, respondent lawyer’s willful statement of
are missing false MCLE details in his pleadings is a dishonest conduct.

Respect- In here, respondent lawyer’s dishonest conduct was also
disrespectful of the courts.

Diligence- In here, respondent lawyer demonstrated lack of
diligence in fully and promptly complying with the MCLE
requirements within the compliance period.

What are the vices that Arrogance – In here, respondent lawyer exhibited defiance,
the respondent got lordliness demeanor and unremorseful attitude during the course
involved in? of the trial.

Injustice- In here, respondent lawyer undoubtedly placed his
clients at risk, given that pleadings with such false information
produce no legal effect and can result in the expunction of the
same.

Untrustworthiness- In here, respondent lawyer violated his sworn
oath as a lawyer to “do no falsehood” because he knowingly and
willfully misrepresented in the pleadings he had signed and
submitted to the court that he was exempted from MCLE II and III.


 Aldea,Ann Marie
6


What are the lessons that I I learned the following:
learned from this case so
that no case of similar can 1. There is no way around MCLE Compliance. You will not
be filed against me in the escape from taking up the MCLE Compliance unless you are
future?
exempted from it.

2. Practicing members of the bar must indicate in all the

pleadings filed before the courts or quasi judicial bodies the
number and the date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemptions as may be
applicable.

3. I learned that it takes less time to do things right than to
explain why you did it wrong (Compliance) .

4. Truth will rise above falsehood.

 Aldea,Ann Marie
7


LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
Who (parties) and what Complainant: Venson R. Ang
(case no. / date) Respondent: Atty. Salvador Belaro Jr.
AC No. 12408/ 11 December 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the Complainant and his 5 siblings inherited from their late mother a
circumstances that lead parcel of land with a building erected situated in San Francisco Del
to file a case) Monte, Quezon City. The siblings never partitioned the property
or assigned their rights to any of the co-owners. On 6 Mar 2015,
complainant and his siblings were surprised to learn that their
mother’s title to the subject property was already cancelled by
virtue of of an Extrajudicial Settlement which they allegedly
executed on 26 Mar 2014 and notarized by respondent lawyer. In
addition, the complainant and his siblings discovered two other
versions of the same document that were submitted to MERALCO,
and the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City that were likely notarized by respondent lawyer. One of the
copy of the extra judicial settlement indicated that Ms. Doneda,
the alleged secretary of the respondent lawyer, appeared and
signed as the sole witness therein. Furthermore, the complainant
and his siblings discovered that respondent lawyer notarized a
Deed of Absolute Sale dated 16 December 2014, which was
purportedly executed by and between the siblings as sellers and
the Ridad relatives as buyers. An acknowledgement receipt dated
16 December 2014 was likewise notarized by respondent lawyer
showing that the complainant’s siblings allegedly received P5
Million Pesos from the buyers in consideration of the purported
sale of the subject property.
Thereafter, complainant charged the respondent lawyer in a letter
complaint.
Respondent (defenses) Respondent lawyer’s defenses were:
1. Respondent lawyer did not notarize the questioned
documents involving the subject property. Respondent
lawyer’s alleged signatures on the said notarized
documents were forgeries

2. Respondent lawyer did not caused the filing of the
questioned notarized documents before the government
agencies concerned and the different alterations made in
different versions of the Extra Judicial Settlement.

3. Respondent lawyer did not personally know Ms. Dioneda

and that she was never employed as his secretary.
 Aldea,Ann Marie
8


What is the The IBP partially granted the respondent lawyer’s Motion for
recommendation of the Reconsideration by imposing the penalty of disqualification from
IBP-CBD? being commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years, in lieu of
the penalty of suspension for three (3) months from the practice
of law considering that complainant had executed and Affidavit of
Desistance and that this is Respondent Lawyer’s first offense.
What is the Not indicated.
recommendation of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent lawyer is liable for breach of notarial
law and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Dispositive portion (final Yes. The 2004 Notarial practice clearly states that when not in use,
decision) the official seal of the notary public must be kept safe and secure
and shall be accessible only to him or the person duly authorized
by him.
The court finds respondent lawyer GUILTY of violating the 2004
Rules on notarial practice and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent layer is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months. Moreover, his notarial
commission is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

What are the core moral Respect for Authority, Respect for material things, and Respect
values that were ignored? for one’s reputation.
What are the virtues that Diligence- In here, respondent lawyer had been remiss in his duty
are missing to exercise due diligence in the performance of his function as a
notary public when he did not properly secure and keep his
notarial seal in a safe place inaccessible to other persons so as to
ensure that nobody can use the same without his authority. Had
he done so, his notarial seal would not have been affixed to the
falsified Extrajudicial Settlement.

Fidelity –In here, respondent lawyer failed to discharge with
fidelity the duties of his office which are dictated by public policy
and public interest

Circumspect-In here, respondent lawyer did not showed great
attention to details and was not cautious because he would have
noticed from the start that he did not recognize the subject
instruments ( falsified notarized documents) and excluded the
same from his Notarial Registry Book.
What are the vices that Negligence- In here, Respondent lawyer failed to require the
the respondent got alleged vendor and the recipient of the purchase price,
involved in? complainant sibling, in the Acknowledgment Receipt to produce
 Aldea,Ann Marie
9


competent evidence of their identities because he merely relied on
their respective community tax certificates. Hence, respondent
lawyer is found negligent in the performance of his duty as notary
public.

Narcissistic-In here, respondent lawyer claimed that IBP violated
his right to due process because the case was already submitted
for resolution when it came to his knowledge when in fact
respondent lawyer was accorded ample opportunity to defend
himself and adduce his own evidence. He denied his flaws and put
the blame on others for his shortcomings and mistakes

Escapist – In here, respondent lawyer tried to escape
administrative liability on the ground that he remains a
Representative and is inactive in the practice of law.
What are the lessons that I I learned the following:
learned from this case so 1. It is the duty of the notaries public to observe utmost care
that no case of similar can in complying with the formalities intended to protect the
be filed against me in the integrity of the notarized document and the or the acts it
future?
embodies. The 2004 Notarial practice clearly states that
when not in use, the official seal of the notary public must
be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to him
or the person duly authorized by him.

2. The Affidavit of Desistance or the withdrawal of the
complaint is not sufficient cause to warrant the dismissal of
an administrative complaint.

3. No law or statute provides that the penalties against erring
lawyer cannot be imposed if said lawyer is inactive in the
practice of law by any reason such as election in public
office.