EN BANC

[ AC. No. 5951, Jul 12, 2016 ]

JUTTA KRURSEL v. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION
RESOLUTION

FACTS: on January 23, 2003, complaina4nt Jutta Krursel, a German national, charges respondent Atty.
Lorenza A. Abion with forgery, swindling, and falsification of a public document. She asks that respondent
be disbarred.
Complainant alleges that she engaged the services of respondent to assist her in filing a case against
Robinsons Savings Bank - Ermita Branch land its officers, in relation to the bank's illegal
withholding/blocking of her account.
Without complainant's knowledge, respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice through a letter
dated April 15, 2002 addressed to I the Monetary Board. Complainant claims that respondent forged her
signature and that of a certain William Randeli Coleman (Coleman) in the letter. She adds that she never
authorized nor acceded to respondent's withdrawal of the complaint.
Complainant was further surprised to discover two (2) Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002 and
March 24, 2002, which appear to have her and Coleman's signature as principals. The documents
constituted respondent as
their attorney-in-fact to represent, to receive, sign in their behalf, all papers, checks, accounts
receivables, wired remittances, hi their legal and extra legal efforts to retrieve and unblock the peso
and dollar savings accounts opened up with the Robinsons Savings Bank at its branch office at
Ermita, Manila, in order for her to withdraw and to encash all their accounts, receivables, checks,
savings, remittances.
Again, complainant claims that the signatures were forged. She denies ever having executed a special power
of attorney for respondent.
Complainant further alleges that on March 24, 2002, respondent filed before this Court a Complaint for
"Writ of Preliminary Prohibitive and Mandatory Injunction with Damages[.]" For such services,
Respondent demanded and received the following amounts on May 7, 2002:
Php 225,000.00 - For filing fee to the Supreme Court
Php 55,000.00 - For Sheriff's Service Fee
Php 50.000.00 - For Atty. Soriano, Clerk of Court, to expedite matters
Php
- Total (Emphasis in the original)
330,000.00
Respondent failed to account for these amounts despite complainant's demands for a receipt.
Complainant's demand letter dated June 24, 2002 for accounting and receipts was attached to the
Complaint as Annex E.

Instead of providing a receipt for the amounts received, respondent allegedly presented complainant a
document purporting to be an Order dated May 10, 2002 from this Court's First Division, resolving the
case' in complainant's favor. The Order was purportedly signed by Atty. Virginia; R. Soriano, "Division
Clerk of the First Division of the Supreme Court." Complainant sought the advice of Atty. Abelardo L.
Aportadera, Jr., who, in turn, wrote to Atty. Virginia Ancheta-Soriano (Atty. Soriano) on July 30, 2002
inquiring about the supposed Order. Atty. Soriano replieddenying the signature as hers. She stated that the
Order did not even follow this Court's format, and that, on the contrary, the case had been dismissed.

Finally, complainant alleges that in April 2002, while she was sick and in the hospital, respondent asked for
complainant's German passport to secure its renewal from the German Embassy. [23] For this service,
respondent asked for the total amount of P440,000.00 to cover the following expenses:
May20, 2002 - Php 40,000.00 - For Processing of Travel Papers
May 27, 2002 - Php 50,000.00 - For Additional Fee for the Travel Papers
June 3, 2002 - Php 350.000,00 - For the release of Travel Papers as required by Atty. O. Dizon, BIDs
                     Php 450,000.00 [sic]
These sums were allegedly not properly accounted for despite complainant's demand. [25] Respondent
eventually presented a purportedly renewed German passport, which complainant rejected because it was
obviously fake.[26] Complainant later found out that her original German passport was in the possession of
Robinsons Savings Bank.
Complainant claims that respondent forged her and Coleman's signatures in two (2) documents: first, in the
Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002[48] and March 24, 2002; and second, in respondents April
15, 2002 letter withdrawing her complaint against Robinsons Savings Bank before the Monetary Board of
the BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Abion is liable under the Lawyer’s Oath.
RULING: Yes.
A comparison of the signature of complainant Jutta Krursel in her Complaint and Verification and
Certification, on one hand, and her contested signature in the Special Power of Attorney dated March 7,
2002, on the other, visibly shows significant differences in the stroke, form, and general appearance of the
two (2) signatures. The inevitable conclusion is that the two (2) signatures were not penned by one person.
Similarly, complainant's contested signature under the Conforme portion in the April 15, 2002 letter of
respondent clearly appears to have been forged.
Although the Special Power of Attorney may have been executed in respondent's favor—as it authorized her
to represent, receive, and sign papers, checks, remittances, accounts, and receivables on behalf! of
complainant—her appointment as attorney-in-fact was only in relation to complainant's "legal and
extra[-]legal efforts to retrieve and unblock [complainant's] peso and dollar savings accounts with
Robinsons Savings Bank, Ermita."
The authority given was only in furtherance of complainant's employment of respondent's legal services.
There was no allegation or proof that respondent benefitted from or used the falsified document.Moreover,
complainant had possession of the Special Power of Attorney, aicopy of which was attached to her
Complaint. In all likelihood, the Special Power of Attorney may not only have been known to complainant;
she may have conformed to its preparation all along.
However, the same conclusion cannot be made with regard to compiainant's forged signature in the April
15, 2002 letter. In the Verification attached to the letter, respondent declared under oath that she caused
the preparation of the letter of withdrawal of the complaint with prejudice. She declared under oath that she
also caused the conforme of her clients after informing them of the facts, both as counsel and attorney-in-
fact.
Respondent committed serious acts of deceit in: (1) withdrawing the complaint with prejudice, without the
knowledge and consent of complainant; and (2) forging complainant's signature or causing her signature to
be forged in the April 15, 2002 letter, thus making it appear that complainant conformed to the withdrawal
of the complaint.
In Sebastian v. Calis:

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws
in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer's relationship with others should be characterized by
the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyer's oath. The lawyer's
oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.
The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character. This
requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is
also essential for remaining in the practice of law. We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a
lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a
member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.
Respondent's deception constitutes a gross violation of professional ethics and a breach of her fiduciary
duty to her client, subjecting her to disciplinary action.
This Court finds respondent Arty. Lorenza A. Abion GUILTY of gross misconduct in violation of the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of
law. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to remove the name of Lorenza A. Abion from the Roll of
Attorneys.
EN BANC
[ Adm. Case No. 8108, Jul 15, 2014 ]
DANTE LA JIMENEZ v. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO +
RESOLUTION

FACTS:The complainants in Administrative Case (A.C.) No. 8108 are Dante La Jimenez and Lauro G.
Vizconde, while complainant in Adm. Case No. 10299 is Atty. Oliver O. Lozano. At the time of the filing of
the complaints, respondent Atty. Verano was representing his clients Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R.
Tecson.

Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports attached to the Complaint as the "Alabang Boys") were the
accused in cases filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the illegal sale and use of
dangerous drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008, the charges were dropped for
lack of probable cause.

Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of
the case, several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and "cover-up" allegedly prevalent in
investigations of the drug trade. This prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own
congressional hearings. It was revealed during one such hearing that respondent had prepared the release
order for his three clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the stationery of
then Secretary Raul Gonzales.

Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC),
sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to
drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that
respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a
member of the bar.

For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on respondent's alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land, and promote respect for legal processes.Atty. Lozano contended that respondent showed disrespect
for the law and legal processes in drafting the said order and sending it to a high-ranking public official,
even though the latter was not a government prosecutor.

Respondent alludes to the Joint Inquest Resolution dropping the charges against his clients for lack of
probable cause, arguing that the resolution also ordered the immediate release of Brodett and Tecson. He
reasoned that the high hopes of the accused, together with their families, came crashing down when the
PDEA still refused to release his clients.[12] Sheer faith in the innocence of his clients and fidelity to their
cause prompted him to prepare and draft the release order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was
overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited."[13] In any case,
respondent continues, the drafted release order was not signed by the Secretary and therefore remained "a
mere scrap of paper with no effect at all."

ISSUE: WON the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.

RULING: No.

After a careful review of the records, we agree with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to hold
respondent administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner,
states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court." We believe that other provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts,
but even in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded
from a member of the bar.
Respondent likewise stated that his "experience with Secretary Gonzales is, he is very open;" and that
"because of my practice and well, candidly I belong also to a political family, my father was a Congressman.
So, he (Gonzalez) knows of the family and he knows my sister was a Congresswoman of Pasay and they were
together in Congress. In other words, I am not a complete stranger to him." Upon questioning by
Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco, respondent admitted that he was personally acquainted with the
Secretary; however, they were not that close.

These statements and others made during the hearing establish respondent's admission that 1) he
personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case was still pending before the latter;
and 2) respondent caused the preparation of the draft release order on official DOJ stationery despite being
unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of "expediting the case."

The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and
consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be
regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends
to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the
judicial process is diluted.

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their
clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted
to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.

Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system." Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he
is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body." The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07,
mandates a lawyer "to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."

Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the bounds of the law. A self-
respecting independence in the exercise of the profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a member
of the bar. In the present case, we find that respondent fell short of these exacting standards. Given the
import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve as commensurate penalty for
the offense.

Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective immediately. This also serves as an emphatic WARNING that repetition of any similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014 ]
ERLINDA FOSTER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG, RESPONDENT.
DECISION

FACTS:BP, thru its Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), received a complaint, dated May 31, 2011, filed
by Erlinda Foster (complainant) against respondent for "unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful” acts as
a lawyer.
From the records, it appears that complainant was referred to respondent in connection with her legal
problem regarding a deed of absolute sale she entered into with Tierra Realty, which respondent had
notarized. After their discussion, complainant agreed to engage his legal services for the filing of the
appropriate case in court, for which they signed a contract. Complainant paid respondent P20,000.00 as
acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental expenses.
On September 28, 2009, respondent wrote a letter to Tropical Villas Subdivision in relation to the legal
problem referred by complainant. He then visited the latter in her home and asked for a loan of
P100,000.00, payable in sixty (60) days, for the repair of his car. Complainant, having trust and confidence
on respondent being her lawyer, agreed to lend the amount without interest. A promissory note evidenced
the loan.
In November 2009, complainant became aware that Tierra Realty was attempting to transfer to its name a
lot she had previously purchased. She referred the matter to respondent who recommended the immediate
filing of a case for reformation of contract with damages. On November 8, 2009, respondent requested and
thereafter received from complainant the amount of P150,000.00, as filing fee. When asked about the
exorbitant amount, respondent cited the high value of the land and the sheriffs' travel expenses and
accommodations in Manila, for the service of the summons to the defendant corporation.
On April 23, 2010, respondent wrote to complainant, requesting that the latter extend to him the amount of
P70,000.00 or P50,000.00 "in the moment of urgency or emergency." Complainant obliged the request
and gave respondent the sum of P22,000.00.
On August 31, 2010, respondent came to complainant's house and demanded the sum of P50,000.00,
purportedly to be given to the judge in exchange for a favorable ruling. Complainant expressed her
misgivings on this proposition but she eventually gave the amount of P25,000.00 which was covered by a
receipt, stating that "it is understood that the balance of P25,000.00 shall be paid later after favorable
judgment for plaintiff Erlinda Foster." On November 2, 2010, respondent insisted that the remaining
amount be given by complainant prior to the next hearing of the case, because the judge was allegedly
asking for the balance. Yet again, complainant handed to respondent the amount of P25,000.00.

On September 29, 2010, complainant's case was dismissed. Not having been notified by respondent,
complainant learned of the dismissal on December 14, 2010, when she personally checked the status of the
case with the court. She went to the office of respondent, but he was not there. Instead, one of the office
staff gave her a copy of the order of dismissal.
On February 2, 2011, complainant decided to terminate the services of respondent as her counsel and wrote
him a letter of termination, after her friend gave her copies of documents showing that respondent had
been acquainted with Tierra Realty since December 2007. Subsequently, complainant wrote to respondent,
requesting him to pay her the amounts he received from her less the contract fee and the actual cost of the
filing fees. Respondent never replied.
Respondent alleged that he was 72 years old and had been engaged in the practice of law since March 1972,
and was President of the IBP Ilocos Norte Chapter from 1998 to 1999. He admitted the fact that he
notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale subject of complainant's case, but he qualified that he was not paid his
notarial fees therefor. He likewise admitted acting as counsel for complainant for which he claimed to have
received P10,000.00 as acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental fees. Anent the loan of P100,000.00,
respondent averred that it was complainant, at the behest of her husband, who willingly offered the amount
to him for his patience in visiting them at home and for his services. The transaction was declared as "no
loan" and he was told not to worry about its payment. As regards the amount of P150,000.00 he received
for filing fees, respondent claimed that the said amount was suggested by the complainant herself who was
persistent in covering the incidental expenses in the handling of the case. He denied having said that the
sheriffs of the court would need the money for their hotel accommodations. Complainant's husband
approved of the amount. In the same vein, respondent denied having asked for a loan of P50,000.00 and
having received P22,000.00 from complainant. He also denied having told her that the case would be
discussed with the judge who would rule in their favor at the very next hearing. Instead, it was complainant
who was bothered by the possibility that the other party would befriend the judge. He never said that he
would personally present a bottle of wine to the judge.
Further, respondent belied the Registrar's comment as to his representation of Tierra Realty in the past.
Respondent saw nothing wrong in this situation since complainant was fully aware that another counsel
was assisting him in the handling of cases. Having been fully informed of the nature of her cause of action
and the consequences of the suit, complainant was aware of the applicable law on reformation of contracts.
Complainant mainly countered respondent's defenses by making reference to the receipts in her possession,
all evidencing that respondent accepted the amounts mentioned in the complaint. Complainant also
emphasized that respondent and Tierra Realty had relations long before she met him. While respondent
was employed as Provincial Legal Officer of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte, he was involved in
the preparation of several documents involving Flying V, an oil company owned by Ernest Villavicencio,
who likewise owned Tierra Realty. Complainant insisted that the amount of P100,000.00 she extended to
respondent was never considered as "no loan."

ISSUE:Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: YES.
In this case, respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his professional
and private capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the filing fees for her
case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to feigned reasons such as the high
value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be incurred by court employees. In other words, he
resorted to overpricing, an act customarily related to depravity and dishonesty. He demanded the amount
of P150,000.00 as filing fee, when in truth, the same amounted only to P22,410.00. His defense that it was
complainant who suggested that amount deserves no iota of credence. For one, it is highly improbable that
complainant, who was then plagued with the rigors of litigation, would propose such amount that would
further burden her financial resources. Assuming that the complainant was more than willing to shell out
an exorbitant amount just to initiate her complaint with the trial court, still, respondent should not have
accepted the excessive amount. As a lawyer, he is not only expected to be knowledgeable in the matter of
filing fees, but he is likewise duty-bound to disclose to his client the actual amount due, consistent with the
values of honesty and good faith expected of all members of the legal profession.
Moreover, the "fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the
lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client." Money
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose should be immediately returned. A
lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by
his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public
confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.
It is clear that respondent failed to fulfil this duty. As pointed out, he received various amounts from
complainant but he could not account for all of them. Worse, he could not deny the authenticity of the
receipts presented by complainant. Upon demand, he failed to return the excess money from the alleged
filing fees and other expenses. His possession gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by, the client.[30] When a
lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting
to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does
not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client.
Verily, when the Code or the Rules speaks of "conduct" or "misconduct," the reference is not confined to
one's behaviour exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyer's professional duties, but also
covers any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be
unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law vest him with.
Unfortunately, respondent must be found guilty of misconduct on both scores.
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 8000, August 05, 2014 ]
CHAMELYN A. AGOT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION

FACTS: Complainant, Chamelyn A. Agot, alleged that she was invited as maid of honor in her best friend's
wedding on December 9, 2007 at the United States of America. To facilitate the issuance of her United
States (US) visa, complainant sought the services of respondent who represented himself as an immigration
lawyer. Thus, on November 17, 2007, they entered into a Contract of Legal Services (Contract), whereby
respondent undertook to facilitate and secure the release of a US immigrant visa in complainant's favor
prior to the scheduled wedding. In consideration therefore, complainant paid respondent the amount of
P350,000.00 as down payment and undertook to pay the balance of P350,000.00 after the issuance of the
US visa.[3] The parties likewise stipulated that should complainant's visa application be denied for any
reason other than her absence on the day of the interview and/or for records of criminal conviction and/or
any court-issued hold departure order, respondent is obligated to return the said downpayment. However,
respondent failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed period. Worse, complainant was not even
scheduled for interview in the US Embassy. As the demand for refund of the downpayment was not heeded,
complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa and the instant administrative complaint against
respondent.

In his Comment dated December 5, 2008, respondent claimed that his failure to comply with his obligation
under the Contract was due to the false pretenses of a certain Rico Pineda (Pineda), who he had believed to
be a consul for the US Embassy and to whom he delivered the amount given by the complainant.
Respondent elaborated that he had a business relationship with Pineda on the matter of facilitating the
issuance of US visas to his friends and family, including himself. He happened to disclose this to a certain
Joseph Peralta, who in turn referred his friend, the complainant, whose previous US visa application had
been denied, resulting in the execution of the Contract. Respondent claimed that Pineda reneged on his
commitments and could no longer be located but, nonetheless, assumed the responsibility to return the said
amount to complainant.To buttress his claims, respondent attached pictures supposedly of his friends and
family with Pineda as well as electronic mail messages (e-mails) purportedly coming from the latter.

ISSUE:whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

RULING: YES.

As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also
of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. In this regard, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

In the instant case, respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer, which resulted to
complainant seeking his assistance to facilitate the issuance of her US visa and paying him the amount of
P350,000.00 as downpayment for his legal services. In truth, however, respondent has no specialization in
immigration law but merely had a contact allegedly with Pineda, a purported US consul, who supposedly
processes US visa applications for him. However, respondent failed to prove Pineda's identity considering
that the photographs and e-mails he submitted were all self-serving and thus, as correctly observed by the
Investigating Commissioner, bereft of any probative value and consequently cannot be given any credence.
Undoubtedly, respondent's deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal
profession; it reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.

Corollary to such deception, respondent likewise failed to perform his obligations under the Contract, which
is to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in favor of complainant. This constitutes a flagrant
violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit:

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to
serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by
his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, as in this
case.

Anent the proper penalty for respondent's acts, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers
neglected their client's affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property
despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In
Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin, the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to
perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to
him by the latter. Also, in Jinon v. Jiz, the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his
failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never performed. In this case,
not only did respondent fail to facilitate the issuance of complainant's US visa and return her money, he
likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting himself as an immigration lawyer, resulting in undue
prejudice to his client. Under these circumstances, a graver penalty should be imposed upon him. In view of
the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to increase the period of suspension from the practice of law
of respondent from six (6) months, as recommended by the IBP, to two (2) years.

Finally, the Court sustains the IBP's recommendation ordering respondent to return the amount of
P350,000.00 he received from complainant as downpayment. It is well to note that "while the Court has
previously held that disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the
respondent-lawyer's administrative and not his civil liability, it must be clarified that this rule remains
applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature for instance, when the claim involves
moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct [from] and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement." Hence, since respondent received the aforesaid amount
as part of his legal fees, the Court finds the return thereof to be in order.

Respondent, Atty. Luis P. Rivera (respondent) is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules 16.01
and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon the finality of
this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 ]
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
DECISION

FACTS:This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice
endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The first letter-complaint,[1]
dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the commissioned notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. NepthaliePasiliao, Atty. Dominique
Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade (complainants) before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing
documents without a commission.

In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street
East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never
commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City.
Instead, he applied and was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison
of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial
commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration. Complainants presented evidence supporting
their allegations such as the pictures of Atty. Siapno's law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and documents to
prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City, to wit: (1)
Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement showing that the Promissory Note was notarized before Atty.
Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale, dated January 24, 2008, notarized in
Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth,
dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt,[5] dated January 24,
2008, notarized in Dagupan City.

Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina
Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents
on his behalf.

Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his
and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries. The Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was
issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003 to
December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006. His commission, however, was cancelled
on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty.
Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission when he performed notarial functions
without commission and recommended that he be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).

The second letter-complaint was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty.
Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver's license and he executed an affidavit of loss which
was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when presented
before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial
commission within the City of Manila.

The third letter-complaintcame from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was
holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and
signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.

ISSUE: WON the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission has been violated.

RULING:

Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno:

YES.
A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained
a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth
Tugade. It was also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired notarial
commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice provides that:

Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years
commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier
revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform
notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not
commissioned in the said places to perform such act.

Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is
invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not
only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at
all times.

In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for notarizing documents
outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray, a lawyer
was suspended by the Court for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a commission. In
Zoreta v. Simpliciano, the respondent was likewise suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing several
documents after the expiration of his commission. In the more recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana, the
Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified from being commissioned as notary
public for a period of two (2) years because he notarized documents outside the area of his commission, and
with an expired commission.

Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial work in Ligayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan without the requisite commission, the Court finds the
recommended penalty insufficient. Instead, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as
notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn

In a letter, dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could not have complied with the
June 9, 2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he was no longer the Executive Judge of the
RTC-Manila at that time. To date, no formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of
Atty. Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn.

With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered
to RE-DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.

The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to
conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty
(60) days from receipt of copy of this decision.
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015 ]
FERNANDO W. CHU, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., RESPONDENT.
DECISION

FACTS: Fernando W. Chu invokes the Court's disciplinary authority in resolving this disbarment
complaint against his former lawyer, respondent Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr., whom he has accused of gross
misconduct.

Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo
Ruiz Corporation (CVC). Atty. Guico's legal services included handling a complaint for illegal dismissal
brought against CVC. On September 7, 2006, Labor Arbiter Herminio V. Suelo rendered a decision adverse
to CVC.[3] Atty. Guico filed a timely appeal in behalf of CVC.

According to Chu, during a Christmas party held on December 5, 2006 at Atty. Guico's residence in
Commonwealth, Quezon City, Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given
to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable decision. On June 10, 2007, Chu
called Atty. Guico to inform him that he had raised P300,000.00 for the purpose. Atty. Guico told him to
proceed to his office at No. 48 Times Street, Quezon City, and to give the money to his assistant, Reynaldo
(Nardo) Manahan. Chu complied, and later on called Atty. Guico to confirm that he had delivered the
money to Nardo. Subsequently, Atty. Guico instructed Chu to meet him on July 5, 2007 at the UCC Coffee
Shop on T. Morato Street, Quezon City. At the UCC Coffee Shop, Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an
alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC. The draft decision[6] was printed on the dorsal portion
of used paper apparently emanating from the office of Atty. Guico. On that occasion, the latter told Chu to
raise another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the decision. But Chu could only
produce P280,000.00, which he brought to Atty. Guico's office on July 10, 2007 accompanied by his son,
Christopher Chu, and one Bonifacio Elipane. However, it was Nardo who received the amount without
issuing any receipt.

Chu followed up on the status of the CVC case with Atty. Guico in December 2007. However, Atty. Guico
referred him to Nardo who in turn said that he would only know the status after Christmas. On January 11,
2008, Chu again called Nardo, who invited him to lunch at the IhawBalot Plaza in Quezon City. Once there,
Chu asked Nardo if the NLRC Commissioner had accepted the money, but Nardo replied in the negative
and simply told Chu to wait. Nardo assured that the money was still with Atty. Guico who would return it
should the NLRC Commissioner not accept it.

On January 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC. Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who
in turn referred Chu to Nardo for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After the denial of the motion
for reconsideration, Atty. Guico caused the preparation and filing of an appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Finally, Chu terminated Atty. Guico as legal counsel on May 25, 2009.

In his position paper, Atty. Guico described the administrative complaint as replete with lies and
inconsistencies, and insisted that the charge was only meant for harassment. He denied demanding and
receiving money from Chu, a denial that Nardo corroborated with his own affidavit. He further denied
handing to Chu a draft decision printed on used paper emanating from his office, surmising that the used
paper must have been among those freely lying around in his office that had been pilfered by Chu's
witnesses in the criminal complaint he had handled for Chu.

ISSUE:Did Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable
decision from the NLRC?

RULING: YES.

The testimony of Chu, and the circumstances narrated by Chu and his witnesses, especially the act of Atty.
Guico of presenting to Chu the supposed draft decision that had been printed on used paper emanating
from Atty. Guico's office, sufficed to confirm that he had committed the imputed gross misconduct by
demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to obtain a favorable decision. Atty. Guico offered only his
general denial of the allegations in his defense, but such denial did not overcome the affirmative testimony
of Chu. We cannot but conclude that the production of the draft decision by Atty. Guico was intended to
motivate Chu to raise money to ensure the chances of obtaining the favorable result in the labor case. As
such, Chu discharged his burden of proof as the complainant to establish his complaint against Atty. Guico.
In this administrative case, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

In taking the Lawyer's Oath, Atty. Guico bound himself to:

x xx maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; x xx support its Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; x xx do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; x xx delay no man for money or malice x xx.

The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer's Oath, to wit:

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

The sworn obligation to respect the law and the legal processes under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility is a continuing condition for every lawyer to retain membership in the Legal
Profession. To discharge the obligation, every lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any
client that would involve defiance of the very laws that he was bound to uphold and obey, for he or she was
always bound as an attorney to be law abiding, and thus to uphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal
Profession. Verily, he or she must act and comport himself or herself in such a manner that would promote
public confidence in the integrity of the Legal Profession. Any lawyer found to violate this obligation forfeits
his or her privilege to continue such membership in the legal profession.

Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of
money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and
corruption. He compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge
sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts constituted gross
dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer's Oath not
to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that
forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct
eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession as a whole. In
doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.

Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession. Grave misconduct is
"improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of
judgment." There is no question that any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional or private
capacity renders him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty
of suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is an essential qualification for the admission of
an attorney and for the continuance of such privilege.

Accordingly, the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend him from the practice of law
for three (3) years would be too soft a penalty. Instead, he should be disbarred, for he exhibited his
unworthiness of retaining his membership in the legal profession.
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015 ]
ANTONINA S. SOSA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION

FACTS:efore this Court is the Complaint for the disbarment/suspension of Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza (Atty.
Mendoza) filed on October 22, 2010 by Antonina S. Sosa (Ms. Sosa), for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility arising from non-payment of debt.

Ms. Sosa alleged that on July 28, 2006, she extended a loan of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Atty. Mendoza at an interest of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) to be paid not
later than September 25, 2006. They agreed that a penalty or collection charge of ten percent (10%) per
month shall accrue in case of default.

To ensure the payment of the obligation, Atty. Mendoza signed a promissory note and issued a postdated
check for P500,000.00.

Atty. Mendoza failed to comply with his obligation on due date. Upon demand to pay, he requested Ms.
Sosa not to deposit the postdated check. She acceded and deferred the deposit of the check based on Atty.
Mendoza's promise that he would later pay. The check was subsequently returned/dishonored after Ms.
Sosa finally deposited it sometime in October 2006; it was "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Ms. Sosa
then obtained the services of a lawyer, Atty. Ernesto V. Cabrera (Atty. Cabrera), to legally address Atty.
Mendoza's failure to pay.

On January 11, 2010, Atty. Cabrera sent a letter to Atty. Mendoza demanding payment of the loan plus
interest and collection charges. Atty. Mendoza ignored the demand letter despite receipt, as proven by the
Registry Receipt and Registry Return Receipt. Likewise, he did not, in any manner, contact Ms. Sosa to
explain why he failed to pay.

In view of the repeated failure of Atty. Mendoza to pay, Ms. Sosa filed the complaint for disbarment or
suspension, charging Atty. Mendoza for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This Rule states that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Acting on the complaint, this Court required Atty. Mendoza to comment on the complaint in a Resolution
dated January 10, 2011. He filed an Urgent Motion for Extension on March 18, 2011, which this Court
granted in a Resolution dated October 19, 2011. Atty. Mendoza finally filed his Brief Comment on January
10, 2012.

Atty. Mendoza admitted in his Brief Comment the existence of the loan and that it is a valid obligation.
However, he alleged that he only received One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) from one Elenita
Cruz (Elenita), a friend of the complainant. Atty. Mendoza did not attach an affidavit from Elenita nor any
evidence proving that he only received P100,000.00.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Mendoza's failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer as dictated by the lawyer's oath,
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby degrading not only
his personal integrity but his profession as well.

RULING: YES.

This Court has held that any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or in his private capacity is a
ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is an essential
qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law. Any wrongdoing, whether professional or
non-professional, indicating unfitness for the profession justifies disciplinary action.

Gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful
intent and not a mere error in judgment."

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic: "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
The facts of the case show that Atty. Mendoza engaged in improper or wrong conduct, as found under Rule
1.01, as the failure to pay the loan was willful in character and implied a wrongful intent and not a mere
error in judgment.

We find it undisputed that Atty. Mendoza obtained a loan in the amount of P500,000.00. He signed the
promissory note and acknowledgement receipt showing he received P500,000.00.[19] Although he initially
denied getting this amount and claimed that he only received P100,000.00, he did not present any evidence
to prove his claim. He later also admitted the validity of his loan without qualification as to the amount.

Also undisputed is the fact that Ms. Sosa tried to collect the amount due upon maturity but Atty. Mendoza
failed to pay. In fact, Ms. Sosa deferred depositing the postdated check upon Atty. Mendoza's request, and
based on his promises that he would pay. Despite all these, he still failed to comply with his obligation.
Worse, the check when finally deposited was dishonored, a fact that Atty. Mendoza did not dispute.

Atty. Mendoza further claimed he had P600,000.00 on hand during the hearing with the IBP Investigating
Officer. He allegedly failed to deliver the amount to Ms. Sosa or her counsel because he arrived late.

We find Atty. Mendoza's excuse to be flimsy. It could have been very easy for him to deliver the
P600,000.00 to Ms. Sosa if he had the real intention to pay. In fact, Ms. Sosa wrote, through her counsel,
Atty. Mendoza asking him to settle his obligation because of his manifestation that he already had the
money.

It is unclear to us why Atty. Mendoza ignored Ms. Sosa's request for settlement after claiming that he
already had the needed funds. He was either lying he had the money, or had no intention of paying in the
first place. Atty. Mendoza was also not candid with the IBP Investigating Officer when he claimed he had
P600,000.00 and that he was ready to pay his obligation. What is clear is that his obligation remains
outstanding after all these years.

In Yuhico v. Atty. Gutierrez this Court sitting en banc held:

We have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith
and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their
duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

To reiterate, his failure to honor his just debt constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct. This dishonest
conduct was compounded by Atty. Mendoza's act of interjecting flimsy excuses that only strengthened the
conclusion that he refused to pay a valid and just debt.
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 10952, January 26, 2016 ]
ENGEL PAUL ACA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RONALDO P. SALVADO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION

FACTS:On May 30, 2012, Engel Paul Aca filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Salvado for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Complainant alleged, among others, that sometime in 2010, he met Atty. Salvado through Atty. Samuel
Divina (Atty. Divina), his childhood friend; that Atty. Salvado introduced himself as a lawyer and a
businessman engaged in several businesses including but not limited to the lending business; that on the
same occasion, Atty. Salvado enticed the complainant to invest in his business with a guarantee that he
would be given a high interest rate of 5% to 6% every month; and that he was assured of a profitable
investment due by Atty. Salvado as the latter had various clients and investors.

Because of these representations coupled by the assurance of Atty. Salvado that he would not place his
reputation as a lawyer on the line, complainant made an initial investment in his business. This initial
investment yielded an amount corresponding to the principal plus the promised interest. On various dates
from 2010 to 2011, complainant claimed that he was again induced by Atty. Salvado to invest with promises
of high rates of return.

As consideration for these investments, Atty. Salvado issued several post-dated checks in the total amount
of P6,107,000.00, representing the principal amount plus interests.

Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn that the aforementioned checks were
dishonored as these were drawn from insufficient funds or a closed account.

Complainant made several verbal and written demands upon Atty. Salvado, who at first, openly
communicated with him, assuring him that he would not abscond from his obligations and that he was just
having difficulty liquidating his assets and collecting from his own creditors. Complainant was even
informed by Atty. Salvado that he owned real properties that could serve as payment for his obligations. As
time went by, however, Atty. Salvado began to avoid complainant's calls and text messages. Attempts to
meet up with him through common friends also proved futile. This prompted complainant to refer the
matter to his lawyer Atty. Divina, for appropriate legal action.

Despite his promises, Atty. Salvado failed to settle his obligations.

Atty. Salvado filed his Answer, denying that he told complainant that he had previously entered into various
government contracts and that he was previously engaged in some other businesses prior to engaging in the
lending and rediscounting business. Atty. Salvado asserted that he never enticed complainant to invest in
his business, but it was Atty. Divina's earnings of good interest that attracted him into making an
investment. He further stated that during their initial meeting, it was complainant who inquired if he still
needed additional investments; that it was Atty. Divina who assured complainant of high returns; and that
complainant was fully aware that the money invested in his businesses constituted a loan to his clients
and/or borrowers. Thus, from time to time, the return of investment and accrued interest when due - as
reflected in the maturity dates of the checks issued to complainant- could be delayed, whenever Atty.
Salvado's clients requested for an extension or renewal of their respective loans. In other words, the checks
he issued were merely intended as security or evidence of investment.

Complainant filed his Reply, pointing out that Atty. Salvado did not deny receiving money from him by way
of investment. Thus, he must be deemed to have admitted that he had issued several postdated checks
which were eventually dishonored. Atty. Salvado's claim that it was complainant himself who prodded
him about making investments must be brushed aside for being self-serving and baseless. Assuming
arguendo, that complainant indeed made offers of investment, Atty. Salvado should have easily refused
knowing fully well that he could not fund the checks that he would be issuing when they become due. If it
were true that the checks were issued for complainant's security, Atty. Salvado could have drafted a
document evidencing such agreement. His failure to present such document, if one existed at all, only
proved that the subject checks were issued as payment for complainant's investment.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Salvado violated the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath.
RULING: YES.

The parties gave conflicting versions of the controversy. Complainant, claimed to have been lured by Atty.
Salvado into investing in his businesses with the promise of yielding high interests, which he believed
because he was a lawyer who was expected to protect his public image at all times. Atty. Salvado, on the
other hand, denied having enticed the complainant, whom he claimed had invested by virtue of his own
desire to gain profits. He insisted that the checks that he issued in favor of complainant were in the form of
security or evidence of investment. It followed, according to Atty. Salvado, that he must be considered to
have never ensured the payment of the checks upon maturity. Atty. Salvado strongly added that the
dishonor of the subject checks was "purely a result of his gullibility and inadvertence, with the unfortunate
result that he himself was a victim of failed lending transactions xxx."

First. A perusal of the records reveals that complainant's version deserves credence, not only due to the
unambiguous manner by which the narrative of events was laid down, but also by the coherent reasoning
the narrative has employed. The public is, indeed, inclined to rely on representations made by lawyers. As a
man of law, a lawyer is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen.[13] A man,
learned in the law like Atty. Salvado, is expected to make truthful representations when dealing with
persons, clients or otherwise. For the Court, and as the IBP-BOG had observed, complainant's being
beguiled to part with his money and believe Atty. .Salvado as a lawyer and businessman was typical
human behavior worthy of belief. The Court finds it hard to believe that a person like the complainant
would not find the profession of the person on whose businesses he would invest as important to consider.
Simply put, Atty. Salvado's stature as a member of the Bar had, in one way or another, influenced
complainant's decision to invest.

Second. It must be pointed out that the denials proffered by Atty. Salvado cannot belie the dishonor of the
checks. His strained explanation that the checks were mere securities cannot be countenanced. Of all
people, lawyers are expected to fully comprehend the legal import of bouncing checks. In Lozano v.
Martinez, the Court ruled that the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The thrust
of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks.
Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law.

Hence, the excuse of "gullibility and inadvertence" deserves scant consideration. Surely, Atty. Salvado is
aware that promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the land is the primary obligation of
lawyers. When he issued the worthless checks, he discredited the legal profession and created the public
impression that laws were mere tools of convenience that could be used, bended and abused to satisfy
personal whims and desires. In Lao v. Medel, the Court wrote that the issuance of worthless checks
constituted gross misconduct, and put the erring lawyer's moral character in serious doubt, though it was
not related to his professional duties as a member of the Bar. Covered by this dictum is Atty. Salvado's
business relationship with complainant. His issuance of the subject checks display his doubtful fitness as an
officer of the court. Clearly, he violated Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR.

Third. Parenthetically, the Court cannot overlook Atty. Salvado's deceiving attempts to evade payment of
his obligations. Instead of displaying a committed attitude to his creditor, Atty. Salvado refused to answer
complainant's demands. He even tried to make the complainant believe that he was no longer residing at
his given address. These acts demonstrate lack of moral character to satisfy the responsibilities and duties
imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court. The subsequent offers he had made and
the eventual sale of his properties to the complainant, unfortunately cannot overturn his acts unbecoming
of a member of the Bar.

All told, the Court finds that Atty. Salvado's reprehensible conduct warrants a penalty commensurate to his
violation of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016 ]
BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN VS. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO
RESOLUTION

FACTS:Before this court is a verified Complaint filed by Bienvenido T. Canlapan, a retired Scout
Executiveof the Boy Scout of the Philippines - Mayon Albay Council, against Atty. William B. Balayo for
violation ofCanon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03, and Canon 12, Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Complainant avers that at the mandatory conference held on June 26, 2014 at 10 a.m., before
ExecutiveLabor Arbiter Jose C. Del Valle, Jr., in connection with a money claim filed by complainant
against the Boy Scouts of the Philippines - Mayon Albay Council (Mayon Council), respondent arrogantly
threwhis arm toward the complainant while menacingly saying: "Maski sampulo pang abogado darhon mo,
dai mo makua ang gusto mo!" ("Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!")

Respondent allegedly made this remark when complainant approached the Mayon
Councilrepresentatives and told them that complainant, not having been informed beforehand that Ervin
O.Fajut (Fajut), Chair of the Mayon Council would bring a lawyer, was placed at a disadvantaged position
because he had none.

Complainant was allegedly taken aback and felt humiliated by respondent's actuation, which showed
ablatant disrespect for the elderly considering that respondent was much younger. The incident
waswitnessed by Higino M. Mata (Mata), First Vice Chair of the Mayon Council, who executed an Affidavit,
and employees of the National Labor Relations Commission, including the security guard.

Complainant never imagined that, in his twilight years and in his quest for j ustice, he would be publicly
humiliated by a young lawyer actively participating in the conference, who was neither a party to
the labor case nor was authorized by the Mayon Council to appear on its behalf.

In his Comment dated December 1, 2014, respondent avers that he has assisted Fajut in several cases.In
addition, Fajut also consulted respondent on the legality of ordinances and resolutions submitted tohis
office as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malinao, Albay. When Fajut was elected Chair of theMayon
Council, he asked respondent to help him on legal matters concerning his new role.

Respondent avers that he replied in a matter-of-fact tone: "Maski pira pang abogado ang darahon
mo,pareho man sana ang resulta kaiyan" ("You can bring as many lawyers as you want, the result will bethe
same").

Respondent further states that he did not flail his hands nor do anything threatening,
menacing,defamatory, or disrespectful towards complainant. He did not even raise his voice. Respondent
was not arrogant in his dealings with complainant. He only answered back because he was unduly provoked
by complainant's persistent and uncalled-for statements against him and his client, Fajut.

ISSUE: WON the lawyer violated the CPR.

RULING: YES.

The manner in which the remark was made is inconclusive in view of the conflicting testimonies of
thewitnesses. Nonetheless, we find rude and disrespectful the utterances made by respondent against
complainant, who was already 70 years old at that time. The tenor of the message cannot be taken lightly. It
was meant to annoy and humiliate complainant. Not only was it ill-mannered; it was alsounbecoming of a
lawyer, considering that he did it to an elderly and in front of co-litigants and NationalLabor Relations
Commission employees.

Elderly people have, in our society, occupied a revered stature. We teach our children to treat elders
withutmost respect. A special week is dedicated to the elderly every year to give them recognition and
honorin order to raise the people's level of awareness of the important role senior citizens play in society.

Under the 1987 Constitution, it is the duty of the family and the state to care for its elderly members.
Pursuant to this provision and the constitutional principles on social justice and priority of the
elderly to an integrated and comprehensive health delivery system, Republic Act No. 7432,otherwise
known as the Senior Citizens Act, was passed into law on April 23, 1992. Republic Act No.7432, as amended
by Republic Act No. 9257, grants certain privileges and benefits to senior citizens.

Republic Act No. 9994, otherwise known as the Expanded Senior Citizen Act of 2010, further amendedthe
policies and objectives.

As servants of the law, lawyers must be model citizens and set the example of obedience to law. Thepractice
of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency andmorality. Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expresses the lawyer's fundamental dutyto "uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land[,] and promote respect for law[.]" Respondent'sdisplay of improper
attitude and arrogance toward an elderly constitute conduct unbecoming of amember of the legal
profession and cannot be tolerated by this court.

Respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which enjoins lawyers to
uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times.

Furthermore, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 requires a lawyer to employ respectful and restrained language
inkeeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Although the remark was allegedly made in responseto
undue provocation and pestering on the part of complainant, respondent should have
exercisedrestraint. Notwithstanding his personal opinion on the merits of complainant's claims (in light of
thedefective notarization in the Memorandum of Agreement dated June 7, 2014), it was improper
forrespondent to state that even if complainant brought 10 (or as many) lawyers as he wanted, he would
notprosper in his claims against the Mayon Council. Careless remarks such as this tend to create
andpromote distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people's confidence in the legal
profession, and erode public respect for it. "Things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot
betaken back."

Ill feelings between litigants may exist, but they should not be allowed to influence counsels in theirconduct
and demeanor towards each other or towards suitors in the case. As officers of the court andmembers of the
bar, lawyers are expected to be always above reproach. They cannot indulge inoffensive personalities. They
should always be temperate, patient, and courteous both in speech andconduct, not only towards the court
but also towards adverse parties and witnesses.

In Santiago v. Oca:

The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for "any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency inhis moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor," whether in his professional or private lifebecause "good
character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and forthe continuance of
such privilege."

Thus, it has been ruled:

To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legalprofession." This
proceeds from the lawyer's duty to observe the highest degree of morality inorder to safeguard the Bar's
integrity. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a,lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private
activities, which tends to show deficiency in moralcharacter, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is
sufficient to warrant suspension ordisbarment.

In Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the respondent was suspended for three (3) monthsfor his
insulting language in his motion for reconsideration amounting to disrespect toward this court. InTorres v.
Javier, the respondent was suspended for one (1) month for employing offensive andimproper language in
his pleadings.

In this case, we find suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month a reasonable sanction
forrespondent's misconduct.
EN BANC
[AC. No. 9574, Jun 21, 2016]
MYRNA M. DEVEZA v. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO
RESOLUTION

FACTS:Before the Court is a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment filed by Myrna M. Deveza

(complainant) against respondent Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado (Atty. Del Prado) for dishonesty
and for acts unbecoming a lawyer.

In her complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged, among others, the following:

2. The charge arose from the following facts:

a) In February 2003, Atty. Alexander del Prado bought my lot located at No. 3242 Malvar St.,
Brgy. Pagasa, Camarin, Caloocan City, consisting of 633.80 sq. meters and covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 178828 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for P1,500.00 per
square meters on installment basis.
b) To evidence the said sale, we executed a Contract to Sell. Atty. Del Prado took all the copies of
the Contract to Sell on the pretext that he will have the document notarized but he never gave me
a copy of the said document.
c) Atty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation to pay me the purchase price of the said lot by
leaving a balance of P565.950.00.
d) When I sent him a demand letter for the payment of his obligation and/or rescission of sale, he
called me and told me that he will meet me and my son at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch, where
he will pay his unpaid balance. He likewise asked me to bring the title over the property.
e) Upon meeting Atty. Del. Prado at Jollibee Muñoz Branch, he asked for the title of the propertyand I
showed it to him. Then Atty. Del Prado brought out a completely filled up Deed of Sale and
he asked us to sign it before he will give us his payment.
f) After we have signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, he gave us P5,000.00 and he told us that
he would have the document first notarized before he will give us his complete payment. x x x
g) At that juncture, Atty. Del Prado tried to put inside his bag our title over the property but I was able
to grab it from him.
h) Atty. Del Prado never paid us the balance of the purchase price for the lot he bought from us.

In a Resolution, dated September 3, 2012, the Court required Atty. Del Prado to comment on
thecomplaint-affidavit but failed to do so.

Pursuant to the Court Resolution, dated November 18, 2013, the complaint was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

On June 18, 2014, the case was set for mandatory conference but only the counsel of complainant
appeared. Despite due notice, Atty. Del Prado did not attend the mandatory conference. The parties were
then required to submit their respective position papers but Atty. Del Prado again did not heed to the
order of the IBP.

On September 2, 2014, the IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation, stated that Atty. Del
Prado's failure to answer the complaint despite several notices and his continuous absence in the
scheduledhearings shows his flouting resistance to the lawful orders of the court and illustrates his
despiciency for his oath of office as a lawyer. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Del Prado be
meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law and as a member of the bar for a period of two
(2) years.

[6]
In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-014, dated January 30, 2015, the IBP-Board of
Governors
adopted and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the CBD and suspended
Atty. Del Prado from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years.

ISSUE: WON the lawyer violated the CPR.

RULING: The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that they possess and
continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
Because of their important role in the society, the Court shall not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for
any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor, whether such conduct
was committed in their professional or in private capacity.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates all lawyers to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same code proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. They should refrain from
doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in
the fidelity,honesty and integrity of the legal profession.

In the present case, Atty. Del Prado committed an act which fell short of the standard of the norm of
conduct required of every lawyer. He deceived the complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and
making her believe that he would pay in full the balance of the purchase price after he had the
documentnotarized. Complainant waited for Atty. Del Prado to make good his promise to pay but
despite several demands, he continued reneging on his obligation which prompted her to file a case against
him.

Moreover, Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court and IBP-CBD to file
his comment and position paper and to appear in the mandatory conference despite due notice. His
continued defiance of the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront
on the court's authority which cannot be tolerated. Atty. Del Prado should bear in mind that he is a
lawyer and an officer of the court who is duty bound to obey and respect the court processes. He
must acknowledge, at all times, the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to their
authority over him as a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for Five (5) years effective upon receipt of this decision with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.