10/19/2019 Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J.

004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution : JULY 2004 - PHILIPP…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2004 > July 2004 Decisions > Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera
from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution:

Custom Search
Search Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc :
Resolution

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[B.M. NO. 793. July 30, 2004]

IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY.
LEON G. MAQUERA

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:

May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from the practice of law in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of
the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction? There is a Rule of Court
provision covering this cases central issue. Up to this juncture, its reach and breadth have not undergone
the test of an unsettled case.

In a Letter dated August 20, 1996,1 the District Court of Guam informed this Court of the suspension of
Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam for two (2) years pursuant to the
Decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996 in Special Proceedings Case No.
SP0075-94,2 a disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
The Court referred the matter of Maqueras suspension in Guam to the Bar Confidant for comment in its
Resolution dated November 19, 1996.3 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also
been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided
the foreign courts action is by reason of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyers oath.

In a Memorandum dated February 20, 1997, then Bar Confidant Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa recommended
that the Court obtain copies of the record of Maqueras case since the documents transmitted by the
Guam District Court do not contain the factual and legal bases for Maqueras suspension and are thus
insufficient to enable her to determine whether Maqueras acts or omissions which resulted in his
suspension in Guam are likewise violative of his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar.4 cralawred

Pursuant to this Courts directive in its Resolution dated March 18, 1997,5
the Bar Confidant sent a letter
dated November 13, 1997 to the District Court of Guam requesting for certified copies of the record of
the disciplinary case against Maquera and of the rules violated by him.6 cralawred

The Court received certified copies of the record of Maqueras case from the District Court of Guam on
December 8, 1997.7 cralawred

Thereafter, Maqueras case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from the IBPs receipt of the case
records.8 cralawred

The IBP sent Maquera a Notice of Hearing requiring him to appear before the IBPs Commission on Bar
Discipline on July 28, 1998.9 However, the notice was returned unserved because Maquera had already

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004julydecisions.php?id=607 1/6
10/19/2019 Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution : JULY 2004 - PHILIPP…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
July-2004 Jurisprudence
Nordic Asia Ltd v. CA: 111159 : July 13, 2004 : J.
Azcuna : Special First Division : Decision
Uy v. Sandiganbayan : 111544 : July 6, 2004 : J.
Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Carlos A Gothong Lines Inc v. CA: 113576 : July 1,
2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
Foster-Gallego v. Sps Galang : 130228 : July 27,
2004 : J. Carpio : First Division : Decision
Velasco v. CA: 130244 : July 7, 2004 : J. Austria-
Martinez : Second Division : Decision
Zarate v. The Dir of Lands : 131501 : July 14, 2004
: J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
People v. Alzona : 132029 : July 30, 2004 : J.
Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision
Narte v. CA: 132552 : July 14, 2004 : J. Tinga :
Second Division : Decision
People v. Tomaquin : 133188 : July 23, 2004 : J.
Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision
People v. Murillo : 134583 : July 14, 2004 : J.
Austria-Martinez : En Banc : Decision
Towne & City Dev't Corp v. CA: 135043 : July 14,
2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision
Tambunting v. CA: 135786 : July 23, 2004 : J.
Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision
Rayos v. CA: 135528 : July 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr :
Second Division : Decision
Eastern Telecoms v. Int'l Communication Corp :
135992 : July 23, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second
Division : Decision
Alon v. CA: 136422 : July 7, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr :
Second Division : Decision
Plaza II v. Cassion : 136809 : July 27, 2004 : J.
Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision
Villamor v. CA: 136858 : July 21, 2004 : J. Callejo
Sr : Second Division : Decision
Lazaro v. Social Security : 138254 : July 30, 2004 :
J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision
People v. Abatayo : 139456 : July 7, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
National Onion Growers Coop Mktg Assn v. Lo :
141493 : July 28, 2004 : J. Carpio : First Division :
Decision
Phil Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp v. V.P.
Eusebio Construction : 140047 : July 13, 2004 : C.J.
Davide Jr : First Division : Decision
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004julydecisions.php?id=607
moved from his last known address in Agana, Guam and did not leave any forwarding address.10 cralawred
On October 9, 2003, the IBP submitted to the Court its Report and Recommendation and its Resolution
No. XVI-2003-110, indefinitely suspending Maquera from the practice of law within the Philippines until
and unless he updates and pays his IBP membership dues in full.11 cralawred
The IBP found that Maquera was admitted to the Philippine Bar on February 28, 1958. On October 18,
1974, he was admitted to the practice of law in the territory of Guam. He was suspended from the
practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his clients property as payment for his legal
services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his clients
case.12 cralawred
In its Decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated that on August 6, 1987, Edward Benavente, the
creditor of a certain Castro, obtained a judgment against Castro in a civil case. Maquera served as
Castros counsel in said case. Castros property subject of the case, a parcel of land, was to be sold at a
public auction in satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente. Castro, however, retained the right of
redemption over the property for one year. The right of redemption could be exercised by paying the
amount of the judgment debt within the aforesaid period.13 cralawred
At the auction sale, Benavente purchased Castros property for Five Hundred U.S. Dollars (US$500.00),
the amount which Castro was adjudged to pay him.14 cralawred
On December 21, 1987, Castro, in consideration of Maqueras legal services in the civil case involving
Benavente, entered into an oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of
the latter.15 cralawred
On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castros right of redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in
satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property transferred in his
name.16 cralawred
On December 31, 1988, Maquera sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred
Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00). 17 cralawred
On January 15, 1994, the Guam Bar Ethics Committee (Committee) conducted hearings regarding
Maqueras alleged misconduct.18 cralawred
Subsequently, the Committee filed a Petition in the Superior Court of Guam praying that Maquera be
sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.519 and 1.8(a)20 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model
Rules) in force in Guam. In its Petition, the Committee claimed that Maquera obtained an unreasonably
high fee for his services. The Committee further alleged that Maquera himself admitted his failure to
comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer shall not enter into a
business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the
transaction and the terms governing the lawyers acquisition of such interest are fair and reasonable to
the client, and are fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in writing.21 cralawred
The Committee recommended that Maquera be: (1) suspended from the practice of law in Guam for a
period of two [2] years, however, with all but thirty (30) days of the period of suspension deferred; (2)
ordered to return to Castro the difference between the sale price of the property to the Changs and the
amount due him for legal services rendered to Castro; (3) required to pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceedings; and (4) publicly reprimanded. It also recommended that other jurisdictions be informed
that Maquera has been subject to disciplinary action by the Superior Court of Guam.22 cralawred
Maquera did not deny that Castro executed a quitclaim deed to the property in his favor as compensation
for past legal services and that the transaction, except for the deed itself, was oral and was not made
pursuant to a prior written agreement. However, he contended that the transaction was made three days
following the alleged termination of the attorney-client relationship between them, and that the property
did not constitute an exorbitant fee for his legal services to Castro.23
cralawred
On May 7, 1996, the Superior Court of Guam rendered its Decision 24 suspending Maquera from the
practice of law in Guam for a period of two (2) years and ordering him to take the Multi-State
Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within that period. The court found that the attorney-
client relationship between Maquera and Castro was not yet completely terminated when they entered
into the oral agreement to transfer Castros right of redemption to Maquera on December 21, 1987. It
also held that Maquera profited too much from the eventual transfer of Castros property to him since he
was able to sell the same to the Changs with more than US$200,000.00 in profit, whereas his legal fees
for services rendered to Castro amounted only to US$45,000.00. The court also ordered him to take the
MPRE upon his admission during the hearings of his case that he was aware of the requirements of the
Model Rules regarding business transactions between an attorney and his client in a very general sort of
way.25 cralawred
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that although the said
court found Maquera liable for misconduct, there is no evidence to establish that [Maquera] committed a
breach of ethics in the Philippines.26 However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his
failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for
removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A
of the Revised Rules of Court.27 cralawred
The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in a foreign
jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by Supreme Court
Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states:
chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.A member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required
to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do so.The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney
is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the
acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima
facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis supplied).
The Court must therefore determine whether Maqueras acts, namely: acquiring by assignment Castros
right of redemption over the property subject of the civil case where Maquera appeared as counsel for
him; exercising the right of redemption; and, subsequently selling the property for a huge profit, violate
Philippine law or the standards of ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar and thus constitute
grounds for his suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction.
2/6
10/19/2019 Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution : JULY 2004 - PHILIPP…
Tan v. Timbal Jr : 141926 : July 14, 2004 : J. Callejo
Sr : Second Division : Decision
Beroa v. Sandiganbayan : 142456 : July 27, 2004 :
J. Carpio : First Division : Decision
Landbank v. Sps Banal : 143276 : July 20, 2004 : J.
Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision
Inding v. Sandiganbayan : 143047 : July 14, 2004 :
J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision
Special Steel Products Inc v. Villereal : 143304 :
July 8, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division :
Decision
Viking Industrial Corporation v. CA: 143794 : July
13, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division :
Decision
Saint Louis University v. Cordero : 144118 : July
21, 2004 : C.J. Davide Jr : First Division : Decision
Globe v. NTC : 143964 : July 26, 2004 : J. Tinga :
Second Division : Decision
Tomacruz-Lactao v. Espejo : 144410 : July 21, 2004
: J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision
People v. Parreno : 144343 : July 7, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
Mercury Drug Corp v. Libunao : 144458 : July 14,
2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v. CA: 145428 : J. Callejo
Sr : Second Division : Decision
People v. Tan : 144707 : July 13, 2004 : J. Azcuna :
En Banc : Decision
Zamboanga Barter Goods Retailers Assn v.
Lobregat : 145466 : July 7, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr :
Second Division : Decision
Quelan v. VHF Phils Inc : 145911 : July 7, 2004 : J.
Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Decision
Custodio v. Corrado : 146082 : July 30, 2004 : J.
Quisumbing : First Division : Decision
Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain : 146202 : July 14,
2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision
Phil Ports Authority v. Sargasso Construction &
Dev't Corp : 146478 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En
Banc : Separate Opinion
Phil Ports Authority v. 146478 : July 30, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision
Toralba v. Mercado : 146480 : July 14, 2004 : J.
Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision
GSIS Cebu Br v. Montesclaros : 146494 : July 14,
2004 : J. Carpio : En Banc : Decision
Miranda v. Besa : 146513 : July 30, 2004 : J. Callejo
Sr : Second Division : Decision
Heirs of Restrivera v. De Guzman : 146540 : July
14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division :
Decision
Valiao v. CA: 146621 : July 30, 2004 : J.
Quisumbing : First Division : Decision
Francisco v. People : 146584 : July 12, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : Second Divison : Decision
Guiang v. Co : 146996 : July 30, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr
: Second Divsion : Decision
Electruck Asia Inc v. Meris : 147031 : July 27, 2004
: J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision
Rural Bank of Sta Catalina v. Land Bank of the Phils
: 148019 : July 26, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second
Division : Decision
Reyno v. Manila Elec Co : 148105 : July 22, 2004 :
J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision
Lopez v. CA: 148510 : July 21, 2004 : J. Carpio-
Morales : Third Division : Resolution
Pahang v. Vestil : 148595 : July 12, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
People v. Pendatun : 148822 : July 12, 2004 : J.
Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Pangilinan v. Gen Milling Corp : 149329 : July 12,
2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
Torres v. Specialized Packaging Dev't Corp :
149634 : July 6, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division :
Decision
People v. Chua : 149538 : Juky 26, 2004 : J. Callejo
Sr : Second Division : Decision
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004julydecisions.php?id=607
The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired his clients property by exercising the right of
redemption previously assigned to him by the client in payment of his legal services.Such transaction
falls squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 149128 prohibits the lawyers acquisition by assignment of the clients
property which is the subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article 1492,29 the prohibition
extends to sales in legal redemption.
The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and Article 1492 is founded on public policy
because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of
his client30 and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client.
The case of In re: Ruste 31 illustrates the significance of the aforementioned prohibition. In that case, the
attorney acquired his clients property subject of a case where he was acting as counsel pursuant to a
deed of sale executed by his clients in his favor.He contended that the sale was made at the instance of
his clients because they had no money to pay him for his services. The Court ruled that the lawyers
acquisition of the property of his clients under the circumstances obtaining therein rendered him liable for
malpractice. The Court held: chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Whether the deed of sale in question was executed at the instance of the spouses driven by financial
necessity, as contended by the respondent, or at the latters behest, as contended by the complainant, is
of no moment. In either case an attorney occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate his terms
to a harassed client, in breach of the rule so amply protective of the confidential relations, which must
necessarily exist between attorney and client, and of the rights of both.32 cralawred
The Superior Court of Guam also hinted that Maqueras acquisition of Castros right of redemption, his
subsequent exercise of said right, and his act of selling the redeemed property for huge profits were
tainted with deceit and bad faith when it concluded that Maquera charged Castro an exorbitant fee for his
legal services. The court held that since the assignment of the right of redemption to Maquera was in
payment for his legal services, and since the property redeemed by him had a market value of
US$248,220.00 as of December 21, 1987 (the date when the right of redemption was assigned to him),
he is liable for misconduct for accepting payment for his legal services way beyond his actual fees which
amounted only to US$45,000.00.
Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2) -year suspension from the practice of law in that
jurisdiction are also valid grounds for his suspension from the practice of law in the Philippines. Such acts
are violative of a lawyers sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients. They are also violative of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which states that [a] lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed in him; and Rule 1.01 which
prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The requirement of
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a
continuing requirement to maintain ones goods standing in the legal profession.33 cralawred
It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment ordering Maqueras suspension from the
practice of law in Guam does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.
Under Section 27,34 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam
are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign
courts action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.35 Likewise,
the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of Maqueras unethical
acts as a lawyer.36 More fundamentally, due process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend
himself and to present testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be
conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule mandates that a
respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges against him. It is only after reasonable
notice and failure on the part of the respondent lawyer to appear during the scheduled investigation that
an investigation may be conducted ex parte.37 cralawred
The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence on his behalf regarding the
charges of unethical behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain that he did receive the Notice of
Hearing earlier sent by the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus, there is a need to ascertain
Maqueras current and correct address in Guam in order that another notice, this time specifically
informing him of the charges against him and requiring him to explain why he should not be suspended
or disbarred on those grounds (through this Resolution), may be sent to him.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended from the practice of law
for non-payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the present.38 Under Section 10, Rule
139-A of the Revised Rules of Court, non-payment of membership dues for six (6) months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the IBP, and default in such payment for one year shall be ground for
removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.39 cralawred
WHEREFORE, Atty. Leon G. Maquera is required to SHOW CAUSE, within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of this Resolution, why he should not be suspended or disbarred for his acts which gave rise to the
disciplinary proceedings against him in the Superior Court of Guam and his subsequent suspension in
said jurisdiction.
The Bar Confidant is directed to locate the current and correct address of Atty. Maquera in Guam and to
serve upon him a copy of this Resolution.
In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or until he
shall have paid his membership dues, whichever comes later.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. Maqueras personal record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts
in the land.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 1.
2 Guam Bar Ethics Committee, Petitioner, v. Leon G. Maquera, respondent.
3 Rollo, p. 11.
4
Id. at 14-15.
5 In said Resolution, Court directed the Bar Confidant to obtain copies of the entire record
of Maqueras case from the appropriate authorities in Guam.
3/6
10/19/2019 Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution : JULY 2004 - PHILIPP…
Maturan v. People : 150353-54 : July 27, 2004 : J.
Quiusmbing : First Division : Decision
Filcon Manufacturing Corp v. Lakas Manggagawa sa
Filcon : 150166 : July 26, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second
Division : Decision
Rural Bank of Makati Inc v. Municipality of Makati :
150763 : July 2, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second
Division : Decision
Contex Corp v. CIR : 151135 : July 2, 2004 : J.
Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision
Romera v. People : 151978 : July 14, 2004 : J.
Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision
DHL Phils Corp v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL
Phils Corp : 152094 : July 22, 2004 : J. Panganiban :
THird Division : Decision
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan : 152259 : July 29,
2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Separate Opinion
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan : 152259 : July 29,
2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Decision
Salvatierra v. Monfort III : 152542 : July 8, 2004 :
J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Reyes-De Leon v. Del Rosario : 152862 : July 26,
2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision
East Asia Traders Inc v. Rep of the Phils : 152947 :
July 7, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division :
Decision
Dwikarna v. Domingo : 153454 : July 7, 2004 : J.
Corona : En Banc : Decision
Calingin v. CA: 154616 : July 12, 2004 : J.
Quisumbing : Second Division : Resolution
Joaquino v. Reyes : 154645 : July 13, 2004 : J.
Panganiban : First Division : Decision
People v. Medina : 155256 : July 30, 2004 : C.J.
Davide : First Division : Decision
Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban : 155421 : July 7,
2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision
Marifosque v. People : 156685 : July 27, 2004 : J.
Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Ngo v. People : 155815 : July 14, 2004 : J.
Panganiban : First Division : Decision
Pentagon Int'l Shipping v. Adelantar : 157373 : July
27, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division :
Decision
People v. Casolocan : 156890 : July 13, 2004 : J.
Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision
Cabugao v. People : 158033 : July 30, 2004 : J.
Puno : Second Division : Decision
Simangan v. People : 157984 : July 8, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
Manila Water Co Inc v. Pena : 158255 : July 8, 2004
: J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Punzalan v. Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J.
Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Querubin v. The Regional Cluster Director : 159299
: July 7, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc :
Decision
European Resources & Technologies v. Nolte :
159586 : July 26, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First
Division : Decision
Landl & Co v. Metrobank : 159622 : July 30, 2004 :
J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Sps David v. Sps Quiambao : 159795 : July 30,
2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision
Samson v. Daway : 160054-55 : July 21, 2004 : J.
Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Sps Hernandez v. Sps Dolor : 160286 : July 30,
2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Batabor v. COMELEC : 160428 : July 21, 2004 : J.
Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Decision
Sps Vera Cruz v. Calderon : 160748 : July 14, 2004
: J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
Gatchalian v. CA: 161645 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga :
Second Division : Resolution
Celino v. Heirs of Santiago : 161817 : July 30, 2004
: J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004julydecisions.php?id=607
6 Rollo, p. 16.
7 Report of the Bar Confidant dated January 21, 1998, Id. at 39. In compliance with the
requirements for the admissibility of public documents issued by a foreign jurisdiction
under Sections 24 and 25 in relation to Section 19(a), Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the Deputy Clerk of Court of the District Court of Guam certified that the documents
comprising the record of Maqueras case transmitted to this Court are true copies of the
original on file with the District Court of Guam (See Id. at 20 and 33).
8 En Banc Resolution dated February 10, 1998, Id. at 40.
9 Notice of Hearing dated June 24, 1998, Id. at 65.
10 IBP Report and Recommendation, Id. at 72.
11 Id.
12
Id., at 69-70.
13 Decision of the Superior Court of Guam dated May 7, 1996, Id. at 50.
14 Ibid.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18
Id
19 The record of the case does not contain a copy of the text of Rule 1.5 of the Model Rules
of Professional Conduct but the Decision of the Guam Superior Court states that Rule 1.5
prohibits a lawyer from obtaining an unreasonably high fee for his services (Rollo, p. 52).
20 Rule 1.8 (a). A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or
knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse
to a client unless:
chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1. the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are
fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in
writing to the client in a manner which can reasonably be understood by the
client;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2. the client is given a reasonable opportunity too seek the advice of
independent counsel in the transaction; and cralawlibrary
3. the client consents in writing thereto. (Ibid)
21 Decision of the Superior Court of Guam dated May 7, 1996, Id. at 52-53.
22 Id. at 53.
23 Id. at 54.
24 Id. at 49-50.
25 Id. at 49-60.
26
IBP Report and Recommendation, Id. at 72.
27 Id. at 73.
28 Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code provides: chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another: chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
(5) Judges, justices, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property
and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession. (Emphasis supplied) cralawlibrary
29Art. 1492. The prohibitions in the two preceding articles are applicable to sales in legal
redemption, compromises and renunciations (Civil Code; emphasis supplied).
30 Cruz v. Jacinto, Adm. Case No. 5235, March 22, 2000, 328 SCRA 636; Nakpil v. Valdes,
Adm. Case No. 2040, March 4, 1998, 286 SCRA 758; Sotto v. Samson, G.R. No. L-16917,
July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 733.
31 70 Phil. 243 (1940).
32 Id. at 247, citing Hernandez v. Villanueva, 40 Phil 775 (1920).
33Villanueva v. Sta. Ana, CBD Case No. 251, July 11, 1995, 245 SCRA 707; Cordova v.
Cordova, Adm. Case No. 3249, November 29, 1989, 179 SCRA 680.
34 Supra, p. 10.
35 Ibid.
36 The characterization of the judgment of a foreign court or disciplinary agency
suspending or disbarring of a member of the Philippine Bar for acts committed in that
foreign jurisdiction as prima facie evidence of the ground for suspension or disbarment is
consistent with Section 48, Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that the
judgment of a foreign court cannot be enforced by execution in the Philippines, but only
creates a right of action. Section 48 further states that a foreign judgment against a
person is only presumptive evidence of a right against that person. Hence, the same may
be repelled by evidence of clear mistake of law (see Nagarmull v. Binalbagan-Isabela
Sugar Co., Inc., 144 Phil 72 [1970]).
4/6
10/19/2019 Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution : JULY 2004 - PHILIPP…
Albaa v. Comelec : 163302 : July 23, 2004 : J. 37 Section 8, Rule 139-B provides: chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

Callejo, Sr : En Banc : Decision

Gonzaga v. Villanueva Jr : AC 1954 : July 23, 2004 :
C.J. Davide Jr : First Division : Resolution
Roncal v. Paray : AC 3882 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga
: Second Division : Decision
Cuizon v. Macalino : AC 4334 : July 7, 2004 : Per
Curiam : En Banc : Decison
Serzo v. Atty Flores : AC 6040 : July 30, 2004 : J.
Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision
Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio : AC 6290 : July 14,
2004 : J. Davide Jr : First Division : Resolution
Parias v. Paguinto : AC 6297 : July 13, 2004 : J.
Carpio : First Division : Decision
Initial Report on the Financial Audit conducted in
the MTC of Pulilan Bulacan : AM 01-11-291-MTC : July
7, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Resolution
Report on the Judicial Audit in the RTC, Br 71,
Antipolo City : AM 03-11-652-RTC : July 21, 2004 : J.
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
Re: Compliance of Judge Rosete : July 29, 2004 :
AM 04-5-118-MTCC : C.J. Davide Jr : En Banc :
Resolution
Oktubre v. Velasco : AM MTJ-02-1444 : July 22,
2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision
Investigation. Upon joinder issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He
shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be
given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard
by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear,
the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of
its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.
Willful failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge
shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the
alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of
Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure
set forth in this Rule for hearing before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as
practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days form its commencement. Thereafter, the
IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution
setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
See alsoBaldomar v. Paras, Adm. Case No. 4980, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 212;
Cottam v. Laysa, Adm. Case No. 4834, February 29, 2000, 326 SCRA 614.
38 IBP Report and Recommendation dated October 12, 2000, Rollo, pp. 72-73.
39 See alsoSantos v. Soliman, Adm. Case No. 4749, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 529; In
the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. M.A. Edillon, Adm. Case No.
1928, December 19, 1980, 101 SCRA 617.

Almojuela Jr v. Ringor : AM MTJ-04-1521 : July 27,

2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc : Decision

Re: Complaint of Atty Claveria : AM P-02-1626 : Back to Home | Back to Main

July 7, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Resolution

Gonzalo v. Mejia : AM P-02-1662 : July 28, 2004 :

Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision QUICK SEARCH
Inting v. Borja : AM P-03-1707 : July 27, 2004 : J.
Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

OCAD v. Juan : AM P-03-1726 : July 22, 2004 : Per 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
Curiam : En Banc : Decision
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
Prak v. Anacan : AM P-03-1738 : July 12, 2004 : J. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
Aonuevo v. Rubio : AM P-04-1782 : July 30, 2004 : 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
J. Puno : Second Division : Resolution
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
Monserate v. Adolfo : AM P-04-1823 : July 12, 2004 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
: J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
Sayson v. Luna : AM P-04-1829 : July 7, 2004 : J. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Gamboa v. Gamboa : AM P-04-1836 : July 30, 2004 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
: J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Ratti v. De Castro : AM P 04-1844 : July 23, 2004 : 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Imperial v. Basilla : AM P-04-1852 : July 30, 2004 : 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

Veloso v. Caminade : AM RTJ-01-1655 : July 8,

2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Resolution

Pantig v. Daing Jr : AM RTJ-03-1791 : July 8, 2004 :

J. Corona : Third Division : Resolution Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
Sevilla v. Borreta : AM RTJ-04-1836 : July 14, 2004
: J. Quisumbing : Second Division

Sierra v. Tiamson : AM RTJ-04-1847 : July 21, 2004

: J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

Mupas v. Espaol : AM RTJ-04-1850 : July 14, 2004 :

J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

Dialo Jr v. Macias : AM RTJ 04-1859 : July 13, 2004

: J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

Corpus v. Ochotorena : AM RTJ-04-1861 : July 30,

2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

Cepeda v. Cloribel-Purugganan : AM RTJ-04-1866 :

July 30, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division :
Decision

Rivera v. Mirasol : AM RTJ-04-1885 : July 14, 2004 :

J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of

Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc :
Resolution

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004julydecisions.php?id=607 5/6
10/19/2019 Re : Suspension of Atty Maquera from practice of Law : BM 793 : July 30, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution : JULY 2004 - PHILIPP…

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004julydecisions.php?id=607 6/6