robert victor vs.

atty saniata gonzales-alzate

facts:
Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel
when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the
May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote margin to Albert Z.
Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra;

The petition was dismissed because it is fatally defective, time-barred and violation of forum
shopping(false statements)
When he ran on may 2010, she was retained as counsel for the opponent party
When he was charged for abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Abra, she represented the complainant Torqueza
negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him, her former client, and for
uttering false and hurtful allegations against him
defenses: (a) she was engaged as an attorney
in the May 2010 elections only by Dominic Valera (a candidate for
Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of
whom was Seares, Jr.s political opponent;
(b) Carlito Turqueza used to be
a political ally of Seares, Jr.;
(c) she disclosed to Turqueza her having once
acted as a counsel of Seares, Jr.;

(d) Seares, Jr. did not object to her legal representation of Turqueza; and (e) the 2007 election
protest that she handled for Seares, Jr. was unrelated to the administrative complaint that
Turqueza brought against Seares, Jr. in 2010.
Issues:
(a) Was Atty. Gonzales-Alzate guilty of professional negligence and
incompetence in her handling of Seares, Jr.s electoral protest in the RTC?
(b) Did Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests when she assisted Turqueza in his
administrative case against Seares, Jr., her former client?
Ruling:
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act
of the attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial
to the clients interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a
grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for
unreasonable failure to file an appeal, especially when the failure occurred after the attorney
moved for several extensions to file the pleading and offered several excuses for his
nonfeasance.The Court has found the attendance of inexcusable negligence when an attorney
resorts to a wrong remedy, or belatedly files an appeal, or inordinately delays the filing of a
complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court hearings. Gross misconduct on the part of an
attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature of the act done and the
motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.
the true cause of the dismissal of Seares, Jr.s Petition For Protest Ad Cautelam was its
prematurity in light of the pendency in the Commission on Elections of his Petition to Suspend
Canvass and Proclamation.
we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the filing and
eventual dismissal of the subsequent Petition for Protest. The verification and certification
against forum shopping attached to the petition contained handwritten superimpositions by
Atty. GonzalesAlzate, but such superimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the
corrections of the dates of subscription and the notarial document number and docket number
for the verification and certification. If that was all there was to the superimpositions, then
there was nothing to support the trial judges observation that the cut and paste method in
preparing the verification and certification for non-forum shopping constituted professional
negligence that proved fatal to her clients protest.

The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was clear from the
start that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her previous engagement by Seares,
Jr. in her legal representation of Turqueza in the latters administrative charge against Seares,
Jr. There was no indication whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information
during her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. that could be used against Seares, Jr. Her
engagement by Seares, Jr. related only to the election protest in 2007, but Turquezas
complaint involved Seares, Jr.s supposedly unlawful interference in ousting Turqueza as the
president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores, Abra in 2010. There is no question that both
charges were entirely foreign to one another. Moreover, the prohibition against representing
conflicting interest further necessitated identity of the parties or interests involved in the
previous and present engagements. But such identity was not true here. The adverse party in
Seares, Jr.s election protest in 2007 was Albert Z. Guzman, the newly-elected Municipal Mayor
of Dolores, Abra, who was not involved in Turquezas administrative complaint against Seares,
Jr. In fact, Turqueza was not even a mayoral candidate in Dolores, Abra in the elections held in
2007 and in 2010. The allegation by Seares, Jr. that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate represented his
political opponent was not even true because Turqueza was Seares, Jr.s political ally, as Atty.
Gonzales-Alzate stated.

VIVIAN VILLANUEVA,
Complainant,
A.C. No. 7657


- versus -



ATTY. CORNELIUS M. GONZALES, Promulgated:
Respondent. February 12, 2008

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x


D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a complaint Vivian Villanueva (complainant) filed against Atty. Cornelius M.
Gonzales (respondent) for failure to render legal services and failure to return the money,
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), and other documents he received from complainant.

The Facts

Sometime in 2000, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of
transferring the title over a piece of property located in Talisay, Cebu. Complainant, as
mortgagee, wanted to transfer the title to her name because the mortgagor failed to redeem
the property within the redemption period and the sheriff had already issued a sheriffs definite
deed of sale in complainants favor. Complainant gave respondent P8,000 as acceptance fee,
the propertys TCT, and other pertinent documents.
[1]


After receiving the money, TCT, and other documents, respondent began to avoid
complainant. Whenever complainant went to respondents office
at BPI Building, Escario St., Cebu City, respondents secretary would tell her that respondent
could not be disturbed because he was either sleeping or doing something important.
[2]


In a letter dated 2 July 2003,
[3]
complainant told respondent that she had lost her trust and
confidence in him and asked him to return the P8,000, TCT, and other documents. Respondent
refused to return the money, TCT, and other documents. After some time and after
complainants daughter confronted him, respondent finally returned the money. However,
until now, respondent has not returned the TCT and other documents.
[4]
Thus, complainant
filed a complaint
[5]
dated 10 September 2003 against respondent before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP).
In an Order
[6]
dated 7 October 2003, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio
A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. Respondent did not
submit an answer.
[7]
In an Order
[8]
dated 21 April 2004, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline
Rebecca Villanueva-Maala ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint, and set
the mandatory conference on 2 June 2004. Respondent did not submit an answer or attend the
mandatory conference. The Commission on Bar Discipline considered the case submitted for
resolution.
[9]


The IBPs Report and Recommendations

In a Report
[10]
dated 27 October 2006, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Caesar
R. Dulay (Commissioner Dulay) found respondent guilty of misconduct and negligent behavior:
(1) he failed to perform any legal service to his client, (2) he did not inform his client about the
status of the case, (3) he returned the P8,000 acceptance fee without any explanation, and (4)
he was indifferent. Commissioner Dulay found that respondent violated Canons 16 and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension from the practice of
law for one year.

In a Resolution
[11]
dated 31 May 2007, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted
and approved the Report dated 27 October 2006 with modification. The IBP Board suspended
respondent from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return to complainant
the P2,000, TCT, and the other documents.

As provided in Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court,
[12]
the IBP Board forwarded
the instant case to the Court for final action.

The Courts Ruling

The Court sustains the findings and recommendations of the IBP with
modification. Respondent violated Canons 16, 17, and 18, and Rules 16.01, 16.03, 18.03, and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent Refused to Account for
and Return His Clients Money

Canon 16 states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys of his client that may come into
his possession. Rule 16.01 of the Code states that a lawyer shall account for all money received
from the client. Rule 16.03 of the Code states that a lawyer shall deliver the funds of his client
when due or upon demand.

In Meneses v. Macalino,
[13]
the Court held that if *a+ lawyer does not use the money for
the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client. In the
instant case, respondent demanded P10,000 and received P8,000 as acceptance fee. Since he
did not render any legal service, he should have promptly accounted for and returned the
money to complainant.
[14]
He did not.
After receiving the money, respondent began to avoid complainant. He asked his
secretary to lie to complainant and shoo her off. When complainant demanded for the return
of the money after three years of not hearing from respondent, respondent opted to ignore the
demand. Respondent only returned the money after complainants daughter confronted
him. If complainants daughter had not persisted, respondent would not have returned the
money. Respondent did not offer any explanation as to why he waited for three years to lapse
before returning the money. In Macarilay v. Seria,
[15]
the Court held that *t+he unjustified
withholding of funds belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action
against the lawyer.

Respondents failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and
upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity
[16]
and moral
soundness,
[17]
and warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
[18]
It gave rise to the
presumption that he converted the money to his own use and constituted a gross violation of
professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
[19]


Respondent Refuses to Return
His Clients TCT and Other Documents

Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall hold in trust
all properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.03 of the Code states
that a lawyer shall deliver the property of his client when due or upon demand.


The TCT and other documents are the properties of complainant. Since respondent did
not render any legal service to complainant, he should have returned complainants properties
to her. However, he refuses without any explanation to return them. Respondent has kept the
TCT and other documents in his possession since 2000. He refuses to return them despite
receiving a written demand and being confronted by complainants daughter. In Vda. De
Enriquez v. San Jose,
[20]
the Court held that failure to return the documents to the client
is reprehensible: this Court finds reprehensible respondents failure to heed the request of his
client for the return of the case documents. That respondent gave no reasonable explanation
for that failure makes his neglect patent.

Respondent Failed to Serve His Client
with Fidelity, Competence, and Diligence

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client. Canon 18 of the Code states that *a] lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 of the Code states that *a]lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.

Clearly, respondent did not serve complainant with fidelity, competence, or diligence. He
totally neglected complainants cause. An attorney-client relationship between respondent and
complainant was established when respondent accepted the acceptance fee. Since then, he
should have exercised due diligence in furthering his clients cause and given it his full
attention.
[21]
Respondent did not render any service.


Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he is bound by the Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In EmilianoCourt Townhouses v. Atty. Dioneda,
[22]
the Court held
that the act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services and subsequently failing to
render such service is a clear violation of Canons 17 and 18.

Respondent Did Not Keep His Client Informed
of the Status of Her Case and Refused to Respond
to Her Requests for Information

Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that *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.

Respondent avoided complainant for three years and kept her in the dark. He did not give
her any information about the status of her case or respond to her request for
information. After giving the money, complainant never heard from respondent
again. Complainant went to respondents office several times to request for information. Every
time, respondent avoided complainant and gave her the run-around. In her affidavit,
complainant stated that:

I often visited him in his office to make a [follow up] of the progress of the
transfer x x x only [to be] told by his secretary that he [was] sleeping and not to
be disturbed or [was] doing something important;

x x x For three agonizing years, I x x x never received a feedback from
Atty. Gonzales so much so that I was forced [to write him] a letter which up to
present remain[s] unanswered[.]
[23]
(Emphasis ours)




Respondent unjustifiably denied complainant of her right to be fully informed of the status
of her case, and disregarded his duties as a lawyer.
[24]


Respondent Did Not File an Answer or
Attend the Mandatory Hearing Before the IBP

Respondents repeated failure to file an answer to the complaint and to appear at the 2
June 2004 mandatory conference aggravate his misconduct. These demonstrate his high
degree of irresponsibility
[25]
and lack of respect for the IBP and its proceedings.
[26]
His attitude
stains the nobility of the legal profession.
[27]


On the Appropriate Penalty

The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial
discretion based on the surrounding facts.
[28]
The Court finds the recommended penalty
inadequate. In Rollon,
[29]
the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for two years
for failing to render any legal service after receiving money and for failing to return the money
and documents he received. In that case, the Court held that:

The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the
amount of P8,000 as x x x partial service fee, respondent failed to render any
legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction
despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling
indifference toward his clients cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably
failed to return to her the files of the case that had been entrusted to him. To
top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him.
[30]


In Small,
[31]
the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for two years for failing
to render any legal service after receiving money, failing to inform his client of the status of the
case, and failing to promptly account for and return the money he received.

The Court notes that respondent does not have to return any amount to
complainant. Complainant gave respondent onlyP8,000, not P10,000, and respondent has
returned the total amount he received. As stated in complainants affidavit:

For the legal service[s] sought, Atty. Gonzales asked an acceptance fee
of P10,000 to which I gave him P8,000 together with the pertinent [mortgage]
documents needed by him for the transfer including the Transfer Certificate of
Title;

x x x x

[D]ue to the persistence of my daughter, Lurina Villanueva, Atty. Gonzales
returned the acceptance fee of P8,000 on August 5, 2003but never returned the
documents mentioned in my letter.
[32]
(Emphasis ours)



Lawyers are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility because an attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. Those who violate the Code must be
disciplined.
[33]
Respondent failed to live up to these standards.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Cornelius M. Gonzales GUILTY of violating
Canons 16, 17, and 18, and Rules 16.01, 16.03, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two years
effective upon finality of this Decision, ORDERS him to RETURN the TCT and all other
documents to complainant within 15 days from notice of this Decision, and WARNS him that a
repetition of the same or similar offense, including the failure to return the TCT and all other
documents as required herein, shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondents personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED
THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5687. February 03, 2005]
FELIX E. EDQUIBAL, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER, JR., respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
In a letter-complaint
[1]
under oath dated January 8, 2002, Felix E. Edquibal, complainant,
charged Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Jr., respondent, with professional misconduct and neglect of
duty.
Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent to assist his mother
Ursula Edquibal in cases she filed against his sister Delia Edquibal-Garcia involving a certain real
property in Masinloc, Zambales. His mother obtained favorable judgments in four (4) out of the
five (5) cases handled by respondent. However, in Civil Case No. RTC-1495-I (filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Iba, Zambales), the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to
his mother. Respondent then advised complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that
the cost involved is P4,000.00. When complainant informed respondent that he does not have
enough money, the latter said P2,000.00 would be sufficient for the moment. After receiving
the money from complainant, respondent told him just to wait for the result. The appeal was
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 65019.
When complainant failed to hear from respondent in January 2001, he went to the Court of
Appeals to follow-up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for
failure of the appellant to file the required appellants brief.
In his comment
[2]
dated June 2, 2003, respondent denied that he filed an appeal, on behalf
of complainants mother, with the Court of Appeals or received P2,000.00. What happened
was that complainant told him that there is someone in the Court of Appeals who can help him
regarding his appeal. Respondent claimed that he did his best for complainants mother and
did not even ask for attorneys fees.
On July 30, 2003, we referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In his Report and Recommendation dated March 19, 2004, Atty. Leland R. Villadolid, IBP
Commissioner, made the following findings:
It is clear from the records of this case that per the records of CA G-R. CV No. 65019,
Respondent is the counsel of record of defendants-appellants therein (including Complainants
mother). In the Resolution dated 31 August 000, it was explicitly noted that (N)otice sent to
counsel for defendants-appellants requiring him to file appellants brief within forty-five (45)
days from receipt thereof was received by him on March 16, 2000. If it is true that Respondent
never agreed to handle the appeal, upon receipt of said notice, Respondent should have
immediately manifested to the Court of Appeals that he is not handling the appeal on behalf of
said defendants-appellants. Thus, Section 2, Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly
states that *T+he counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be
respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals. By
failing to do so, the Court of Appeals had every reason to assume that he was likewise
representing defendants-appellants in the appeal. Accordingly, his failure to timely file the
required appellants brief resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
The facts of this case clearly show that Respondent violated Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Undoubtedly, Respondents failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the
interest of Complainant (Complainants mother) caused the latter material prejudice. It should
be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will
exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due
diligence or abandons his clients cause makes him unworthy of the trust reposed in him by the
latter. x x x
Atty. Villadolid recommended to the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be
reprimanded for failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing the cause of
complainant; and that respondent be directed to return the amount of P2,000.00 as and by
way of restitution to complainant.
In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-383 dated July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the Report and Recommendation of Atty. Villadolid, thus:
RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made
part of the Resolution as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering the respondents failure
to act with reasonable diligence in representing the cause of complainant, Atty. Roberto Ferrer,
Jr., is hereby REPRIMANDED and Ordered to Return the amount of P2,000,00 by way of
Restitution to complainant.
[3]

We sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the penalty
recommended.
Records show that respondent was the counsel of record for the appellants, complainants
mother and other relatives in CA-G.R. CV No. 65019. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals
dated August 31, 2000 clearly states that the notice sent to counsel for defendants-appellants
requiring him to file appellants brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof, was
received by him on March 16, 2000.
[4]
However, respondent failed to file the appellants brief
despite receipt of such notice.
Section 2, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 2. Counsel and guardians. The counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court
of origin shall be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court
of Appeals. When others appear or are appointed, notice thereof shall be served immediately
on the adverse party and filed with the court.
If it were true that respondent did not agree to represent the appellants in CA-G.R. CV No.
65019, why did he not file with the Court of Appeals a motion to withdraw as their counsel?
Obviously, his negligence, which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, caused prejudice to his
clients. Likewise, respondents failure to inform complainant of the status of his mothers
appeal is inexcusable.
It bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus,
there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his
case.
[5]
A client should never be left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the
trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal
profession in general.
Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provide:
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.
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.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to his clients request for information.
Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the
opposite of negligence.
[6]
A lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of
practice expected of men of good intentions. He thus owes entire devotion to the interest of
his client, warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his
utmost learning, skill, and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from him,
save by the rules of law legally applied.
[7]
It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of
success is eternal diligence to the cause of the client.
The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or that
extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection
use for securing and preserving their rights.
[8]
All that is required is ordinary diligence
(diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias. Yet, even by this
lesser standard, respondents failure to attend to his clients appeal is clearly wanting.
In People v. Cawili,
[9]
we held that the failure of counsel to submit the brief within the
reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action. People v. Villar,
Jr.
[10]
characterized a lawyers failure to file a brief for his client as inexcusable neglect. In Blaza
v. Court of Appeals,
[11]
we held that the filing of a brief within the period set by law is a duty not
only to the client, but also to the court. Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v.
Saquilaban
[12]
reiterated Ford v. Daitol
[13]
and In re: Santiago F. Marcos
[14]
in holding that an
attorneys failure to file brief for his client constitutes inexcusable negligence.
In cases involving a lawyers failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate
court, we did not hesitate to suspend the erring member of the Bar from the practice of law for
three months,
[15]
six months,
[16]
or even disbarment in severely aggravated cases.
[17]

Accordingly and considering the circumstances of this case, we find a need to scale the
recommended penalty upward. Here, we are convinced that respondent deserves the penalty
of suspension for three (3) months.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER, JR. is hereby found guilty of professional
misconduct and neglect of duty. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
months with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely. He is further DIRECTED to return immediately to the complainant the amount
of P2,000.00.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA, A.C. No. 7298
Complainant, [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1565]

Present:

- versus - QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:

June 25, 2007


x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x


R E S O L U T I O N


TINGA, J.:

In this administrative complaint, a lawyer is charged with violation of Rule 19.01 of
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for writing a demand letter the contents of
which threatened complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification
of documents.


Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio (respondent) appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an
illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Sometime in
August 2005, complainant Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF Company, Inc.
(Subic), received a notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the NLRC for a
mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference, respondent, in behalf of his client,
submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant
rejected the claim as being baseless. Complainant thereafter sent notices to Hufana for the
latter to explain her absences and to return to work. In reply to this return to work notice,
respondent wrote a letter to complainant reiterating his clients claim for separation pay. The
letter also contained the following threat to the company:


BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be constrained to file and
claim bigger amounts including moral damages to the tune of millions under
established precedence of cases and laws. In addition to other multiple charges
like:

1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the
government.
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.

These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts
as settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
[1]





Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards,
complainant filed an administrative complaint
[2]
with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader (Motion to
Dismiss and Counterclaims)
[3]
claiming that Atty. Emmanuel A. Jocson, complainants legal
counsel, also played an important part in imputing the malicious, defamatory, and fabricated
charges against him. Respondent also pointed out that the complaint had no certification
against forum shopping and was motivated only to confuse the issues then pending before the
Labor Arbiter. By way of counterclaim, respondent asked for damages and for the disbarment
of Atty. Jocson. Respondent also asked the IBP to endorse the prosecution of Atty. Jocson for
Usurpation of Public Functions
[4]
and for violation of the Notarial Law.
[5]


A mandatory conference was held on 6 December 2005 but respondent failed to
appear.
[6]
Both parties were thereafter required to submit their position papers.

The Report and Recommendation
[7]
of Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan
found that complainant, failed to file his position paper and to comply with Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 requiring a certificate against forum shopping and, accordingly,
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. On 26 May 2006, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
[8]
On 10 July 2006, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
transmitted to the Supreme Court the notice of said Resolution and the records of the
case.
[9]
Thereafter, on 18 August 2006, respondent filed with the IBP a Motion for
Reconsideration (for Modification of Decision)
[10]
reiterating his claim of damages against
complainant in the amount of four hundred million pesos (P400,000,000.00), or its equivalent
in dollars, for filing the false, malicious, defamers [sic], fraudulent, illegal fabricators [sic],
malevolent*,+ oppressive, evasive filing *of+ a groundless and false suit.
[11]


Complainant thereafter filed this Petition for Review (of the Resolution of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline)
[12]
alleging that he personally submitted and filed with the IBP his
position paper, after serving a copy thereof on respondent by registered mail. He further
alleges that he was deprived of his right to due process when the IBP dismissed his complaint
without considering his position paper and without ruling on the merits thereof.

Complainant accordingly prays for the reversal and setting aside of the 26 May 2006
Resolution
[13]
of the IBP Board of Governors and the remand of the case to the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline for proper adjudication and disposition on the merits.

Based on the records, there is truth to complainants assertion that he filed his position
paper on 21 December 2005, after serving a copy of the same to respondent. The IBP stamp on
the front page of said document shows that it was received by the IBP on 21 December 2005.
The registry receipt attached to the same document also shows that it was sent by registered
mail to respondent on the same date.
[14]


Complainant, however, omitted to offer any explanation in his petition before this Court
for his failure to attach a certification against forum shopping in his complaint against
respondent.

The requirement of a certification against forum shopping was originally required by
Circular No. 28-91, dated 8 February 1994, issued by this Court for every petition filed with the
Court or the Court of Appeals. Administrative Circular No. 04-94, made effective on 1 April
1994, expanded the certification requirement to include cases filed in courts and quasi-judicial
agencies below this Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs
(1) and (2) of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[15]
Said rule states that a violation thereof would constitute
contempt of court and be cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions without prejudice
to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel of the party concerned.
[16]


The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took against
complainant his failure to attach the certification against forum shopping to his complaint and
consequently dismissed his complaint. This Court, however, disagrees and, accordingly, grants
the petition. However, a remand of the case to the IBP would unduly prolong its adjudication.

The Courts determination is anchored on the sui generis nature of disbarment
proceedings, the reasons for the certification against forum shopping requirement,
complainants subsequent compliance with the requirement, and the merit of complainants
complaint against respondent.

The Court, in the case of In re Almacen,
[17]
dwelt on the sui generis character of
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, thus:


Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather
an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being
intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor
therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its
primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not
the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in
the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of
the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in
view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest
administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such
posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a
prosecutor.
[18]
[Emphasis supplied]

In view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against forum
shopping to be attached to the complaint, if one is required at all in such proceedings, must
refer to another administrative case for disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent,
because such other proceedings or action is one that necessarily involves the same issues
as the one posed in the disbarment complaint to which the certification is supposedly to be
attached.

Further, the rationale for the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is to
apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim involving the same issues in
another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping
situation. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes,
[19]
which
tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure,
and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
[20]
Furthermore, the
rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and
their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly
administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the
precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more
courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.
[21]


It is in this light that we take a further look at the necessity of attaching a certification
against forum shopping to a disbarment complaint. It would seem that the scenario sought to
be avoided, i.e., the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely
happens in disbarment complaints considering that said proceedings are either taken by the
Supreme Court motuproprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
complaint of any person.
[22]
Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment case fails to attach a
certification against forum shopping, the pendency of another disciplinary action against the
same respondent may still be ascertained with ease. We have previously held that the rule
requiring a certification of forum shopping to accompany every initiatory pleading,
should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate
and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedurewhich is to achieve substantial
justice as expeditiously as possible.
[23]


At any rate, complainants subsequent compliance with the requirement cured the
supposed defect in the original complaint. The records show that complainant submitted the
required certification against forum shopping on 6 December 2006 when he filed his
Comment/Opposition to respondents Motion to Dismiss the present petition.

Finally, the intrinsic merit of complainants case against respondent justifies the grant of
the present petition. Respondent does not deny authorship of the threatening letter to
complainant, even spiritedly contesting the charge that the letter is unethical.

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall represent
his client with zeal within the bounds of the law, reminding legal practitioners that a lawyers
duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his clients success is
wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of
law and ethics.
[24]
In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding. Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the
lawyers client.
[25]


In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe. Through
his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts they
propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as
well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of
business license to operate due to violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for
violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail.

Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure
or opposition in the public prints,obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining
from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his
prejudice. In common parlance and in general acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous
with extortion, the exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of
an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by
operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the
weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim.
[26]


In Sps. Boyboy v. Atty. Yabut, Jr.,
[27]
we held that *a+n accusation for blackmail and
extortion is a very serious one which, if properly substantiated, would entail not only
respondents disbarment from the practice of law, but also a possible criminal
prosecution.
[28]
While the respondent in Boyboy was exonerated for lack of evidence, the same
may not be said of respondent in the present case for he admits to writing the offensive letter.

In fact, respondent does not find anything wrong with what he wrote, dismissing the same
as merely an act of pointing out massive violations of the law by the other party, and, with
boldness, asserting that a lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth, to report to the
government commission of offenses punishable by the State.
[29]
He further asserts that the
writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition and that our laws allow and
encourage the settlement of disputes.

Respondents assertions, however, are misleading, for it is quite obvious that
respondents threat to file the cases against complainant was designed to secure some leverage
to compel the latter to give in to his clients demands. It was not respondents intention to
point out complainants violations of the law as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter
even contains an implied promise to keep silent about the said violations if payment of the
claim is made on the date indicated.

Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this
jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he
has with his client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may
be tasked to enforce his clients claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such as
writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a specified period. However, the letter in
this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file
retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his clients claim for
separation pay. The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to
yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Respondent cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged communication rule
under which a private communication executed in the performance of a legal duty is not
actionable. The privileged nature of the letter was removed when respondent used it to
blackmail complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client.

However, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that
disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the
same out of his overzealousness to protect his clients interests. Accordingly, the more
appropriate penalty is reprimand.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is granted. The 26 May 2006 Resolution
of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Lolito G.
Aparicio is hereby found liable for violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED