Treas v. People of the Philippines, G. R. No.

195002 (2012) This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 9 July 2010 and Resolution dated 4 January 2011. Facts: Private complainant came to appellant, Hector Treas, for advice regarding transfer of land title. Treas informed complainant that titling of the property would incur expenses that would total P144,000. Complainant paid P150,000 and Treas issued a receipt and prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. However, upon consultation with BIR, the receipts were found to be fake. Treas admitted to using the P120,000 on other transactions. To settle his accounts, Treas issued Bank of Commerce checks in the amount of P120,000 and claimed the P30,000 as attorneys fees. However, the checks were dishonored upon deposit for the reason that the account was closed. Estafa was filed against Treas. RTC found Treas guilty of Estafa and CA affirmed the decision. Treas filed a petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Ruling: This Court sees it fit to note that the Code of Professional Responsibility strongly militates against the petitioners conduct in handling the funds of his client. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides: Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those others kept by him. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he

should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His failure to return the client's money upon demand 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. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. The case was REFERRED to the IPB Board of Governors for investigation and recommendation.

Hernandez v. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387, (2012) This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez (complainant) against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent) of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her case. Facts: Complainant was a respondent of an ejectment case with the RTC. RTC ordered the Deed of Sale of complainants cancelled and to pay the complainant of the said case, Duigan, attorneys fees and damages. Complainants chose Padilla to represent them for their Appeal with the CA. He filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants Brief, which was requested by the CA. Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, which was granted by the CA. Complainant claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he acted with deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law. Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal, because respondent never informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she asked re spondent several times about the status of the appeal, but despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response, to the damage and prejudice of the spouses. Respondent claimed it was the husband and not the complainant who transacted with him and that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed it was the pleading required. He further advised the husband to settle the case and after not hearing from him again, assumed that the husband heeded his advice. When he received the CAs Order to comment on the Motion to Dismiss, he instructed his staff to contact the husband but to no avail and was thus surprised when he was informed by the husband of the Dismissal. The IBP found respondent guilty of violating Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended suspension for 3-6 months. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 5, 17 and 18 of the Code. Ruling: The Courts adopt the factual findings of the board of governors of the IBP. This Court, however, disagrees with its Decision to reduce the penalty to one-month

suspension. We thus affirm the six-month suspension the Board originally imposed. A perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her husband. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyers duty to serve the client with competence and diligence (Canon 18). Respondents claim that the reason for his failure to file the proper pleading was that he did not have enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual milieu of the case does not excuse his negligence to file a proper pleading and comment on the Motion to Dismiss as well as failure to update his clients regarding status of the case. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation, Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. and Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.. Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it was respondents duty to know the proper pleadi ng to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. CANON 5 - A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS.

Anacta v. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074 (2012) This is a case for disbarment by Grace M. Anacta against respondent, Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice. Facts: Complainant engaged and paid for the services of respondent for petition for annulment of marriage before the RTC. Respondent presented a supposed copy of Petition for Annulment of Marriage which bore the stamp of the RTC with a docket number. After inquiry with the RTC however, it was discovered that there was no such petition before the RTC. Complainant terminated respondents services and requested the RTC to refuse any belated attempts to file a petition. Complainant, through new counsel, wrote a letter to demand indemnification for the deceitful acts, which respondent failed to respond to. The respondent also failed to respond to IBPs notice to answer the complaint. After a mandatory conference, which respondent failed to show, the IBP deemed the case submitted for resolution. The IPB found evidence that respondent is guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he misrepresented having filed the petition for annulment of marriage and recommended suspension of 4 years plus reimbursement to complainant. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 1 and 16 of the Code. Ruling: Respondent committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting his actions to his client. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. It is thus clear that respondent violated his lawyers oath and code of conduct when he withheld the amount paid by his client despite his failure to render the necessary legal services and after complainant demanded its return. Complainant asks that respondent be disbarred. However, we find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to

discipline respondent. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for four years. He is also DIRECTED to return to the complainant the amount he was paid.

Note: While suspension is sufficient for the misconduct of the lawyer in misrepresenting his actions to the client through deceitful conduct, the Courts failed to give importance to the disrespect accorded by the lawyer to the Investigating Commission and the IPB when he failed to answer their summons. The act of respondent in not filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating Commission, despite due notice, emphasized his contempt for legal proceedings. I believe this warrants further penalty by the Courts.

Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. No. 8254 (2012) This is a disbarment case filed by Nesa G. Isenhardt against Atty. Leonardo M. Real for allegedly notarizing a document even without the appearance of the parties. Facts: Complainant alleged that respondent notarized a Special Power Attorney (SPA) supposedly executed by her. The SPA authorizes complainants brother to mortgage her real property. Complainant averred that she never appeared before respondent since she was in Germany at that time. Because of respondents act, the property subject of the SPA was mortgaged and later foreclosed. Respondent claimed that he was introduced to a woman by the name of Nesa G. Isenhardt by spouses Wilfredo and Lorena Gusi, claiming that she was the sister of Wilfredo and she is the supposed financier of their proposed business. The spouses Gusi, together with the woman purporting to be the complainant, went to his office to have the subject SPA notarized. He maintained that the parties all signed in his presence, exhibiting to him their respective Community Tax Certificates (CTCs). He added that the complainant even presented to him the original copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the property. Respondent argued that under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a complaint for disbarment prescribes in two years from the date of professional misconduct. Since the document questioned was notarized in year 2000, the accusation of misconduct which was filed only in September 2004 had already prescribed. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 1 of the CPR. Ruling: Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he made it appear that complainant personally appeared before him and subscribed an SPA authorizing her brother to mortgage her property. It cannot be overemphasized that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person who executed it,

personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. This is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free act. Anent respondents claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, we agree with the Investigating Commissioner that the rule should be construed to mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. WHEREFORE, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Leonardo M. Real is hereby REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely. He is directed to report the date of receipt of this Decision in order to determine the date of effectivity of his suspension.

Del Mundo v. Capistrano, A.C. No. 6903 (2012) This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Suzette Del Mundo (Suzette) charging respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano (Atty. Capistrano) of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Facts: Complainant engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00. In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00. The latter made her believe that the cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that no petition has yet been filed for her. She demanded the refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis, to which she agreed. However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 on August 15, 2005 and thereafter, refused to communicate with her, prompting the institution of this administrative complaint on September 7, 2005. Atty. Capistrano acknowledged receipt of the amount of PhP78,500.00 from Suzette and his undertaking to return the agreed sum of PhP63,000.00. He also admitted responsibility for his failure to file Suzettes petition and cited as justification his heavy workload and busy schedule as then City Legal Officer of Manila and lack of available funds to immediately refund the money received.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 16 and 18 of the CPR. Ruling: When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling ones case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle. Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to

keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of such payment.

Bengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368 (2012) This is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainants Fidela G. Bengco (Fidela) and Teresita N. Bengco (Teresita) against respondent Atty. Pablo Bernardo (Atty. Bernardo) for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and violation of his duties and oath as a lawyer. Facts: Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud complainants by using false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of the land belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of complainants. They convinced complainant[s] that if they will finance and deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money he would expedite the titling of the subject land and further by means of other similar deceit like misrepresenting himself as lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the subject land and that he has contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainant[s] to give and deliver the said amount ([P]495,000.00). Once in possession of said amount, far from complying with his obligation to expedite and cause the titling of the subject land, [wilfully], unlawfully and illegally misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to his personal use and benefit and despite demand upon him to return the said amount, he failed and refused to do so, which acts constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and Violation of Duties and Oath as a lawyer. Respondent alleged that it was Andy Magat whom they contacted and who in turn sought the legal services of the respondent. It was Andy Magat who received the said money from them. The case was set for mandatory conference. The respondent failed to appear; thus, the IBP considered the respondent in default for his failure to appear and for not filing an answer despite extensions granted. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 2 & 3 of the CPR.

Ruling: It can not be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. 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. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. There is no question that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchased. While he begs for the Courts indulgence, his contrition is shallow considering the fact that he used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of P495,000.00. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon notice hereof. Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN the amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10)

DAYS from receipt of this Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant within TEN (10) DAYS therefrom; with a STERN WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him the additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

IN RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED 28 APRIL 2003 IN G.R. NOS. 145817 AND 145822, A. C. No. 6332 (2012) Facts: This administrative case originated when respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 30 January 2003 (the subject Motion to Inhibit) in two consolidated petitions involving respondent that were pending before the Court. This motion is directed against the then ponente of the consolidated petitions, Justice Antonio T. Carpio. In support of his claims to inhibit the ponente, Atty. Pea attached to the subject Motion to Inhibit two copies of the official Agenda for 13 November 2002 of the First Division of this Court, which he claimed to have anonymously received through the mail. He also attached a copy of the Courts internal Resolution regarding the transfer of the case from the Third Division to the First Division, upon the request of Justice Carpio, to establish the latters alleged special interest in the case. In response, the Court issued a resolution on 17 February 2003 to require Atty. Pea and Atty. Manuel R. Singson, counsel of Urban Bank in the consolidated petitions, to appear before the Court on 03 March 2003 for an Executive Session. The executive session was called because the Court is perturbed by some statements made by respondent Atty. Magdaleno Pea involving strictly confidential matters which are purely internal to the Court and which the latter cites as grounds in his Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion. Atty. Pea answered that he was 100% certain that those documents are authentic and he assumed that they came from Manila because the Supreme Court is in Manila. he believed that they are official documents of the Court inasmuch as he also received a copy of another resolution issued by the Court when the same was faxed to him by Atty. Singson, counsel for petitioner. On questions by the Chief Justice, Atty. Pea admitted that he was only joking to Atty. Singson when on the cellular phone he intimated that Justice Carpio could have been bribed because he has a new Mercedes Benz. When pressed many times to answer categorically whether Atty. Singson told him that Justice Carpio was bribed, Atty. Pea could not make any candid or forthright answer. He was evasive. The Court ordered that a formal investigation be undertaken by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) on the actions of Atty. Pea. The OBC opines that although respondent Pea may appear to have been passionate in the subject

Motion to Inhibit, the language he used is not to be considered as malicious imputations but mere expressions of concern based on what he discovered from the internal documents of the Court that he had secured. The OBC recommended the dismissal of the second charge that respondent supposedly submitted falsified documents to this Court as annexes. On the third charge for contempt against respondent filed by the De Leon Group and Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, their counsel, the OBC likewise suggests the dismissal of the same. Finally, the OBC desisted from making a finding on the fourth charge of forum-shopping leveled by respondent Pea against Urban Bank and the individual bank directors. Issues: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 8, 10, & 11 of the CPR. Ruling: [Violation of Canon 11 Rule 11.03 & 11.04] As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. While lawyers are entitled to present their case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of foul and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. [Violation of Canon 10] Candor and truthfulness are some of the qualities exacted and expected from members of the legal profession. Thus, lawyers shall commit no falsehood, nor shall they mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. As disciples of truth, their lofty vocation is to correctly inform the court of the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions. Courts are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. In the instant case, the submission of a document purporting to be a copy of the Agenda of a member of this Court is an

act of dishonesty that puts into doubt the ability of respondent to uphold his duty as a disciple of truth. [Violation of Canon 8 Rule 8.01] Lawyers shall conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their professional colleagues. They shall not, in their professional dealings, use language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Lawyers shall use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of a judicial forum. The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes of strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make grave and unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing against other members of the legal profession. It is the duty of members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justness of the cause with which they are charged. It has not escaped the Courts attention that respondent Pea has manifested a troubling history of praying for the inhibition of several members of this Court or for the reraffle of the case to another Division, on the basis of groundless and unfounded accusations of partiality. A sampling of his predilection for seeking the inhibition of, so far, eleven Justices of this Court, in an apparent bid to shop for a sympathetic ear, includes 21 pleas and motions. PREMISES CONSIDERED, for violating Canons 8, 10 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for failing to give due respect to the Courts and his fellow lawyers, respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.