Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Dr. Perez also alleged that she received an anonymous letter in the
mail informing her of Atty. Catindigs scandalous affair with Atty.
Baydo, and that sometime later, she came upon a love letter written
and signed by Atty. Catindig for Atty. Baydo. In the said letter, Atty.
Catindig professed his love to Atty. Baydo, promising to marry her
once
his
impediment
is
removed.
Atty. Catindig, in his Comment, admitted that he married Gomez on
May 18, 1968. He claimed, however, that immediately after the
wedding, Gomez showed signs that she was incapable of complying
with her marital obligations, as she had serious intimacy problems;
and that while their union was blessed with four children, their
relationship
simply
deteriorated.
Eventually, their irreconcilable
facto separation in 1984.
differences
led
to
their de
On January 29, 2003, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
After due proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner of the
IBP-CBD which recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig
for gross immorality
The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that Atty. Catindigs
act of marrying Dr. Perez despite knowing fully well that his
previous marriage to Gomez still subsisted was a grossly
immoral and illegal conduct, which warrants the ultimate penalty
of disbarment.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that the charge
against Atty. Baydo be dismissed for dearth of evidence
The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution, which adopted and
approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue: W/N the respondents committed gross immorality, which would
warrant their disbarment.
Held: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession
and
support
the
activities
of
the
Integrated
Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
In Arnobit
v.
Atty.
Arnobit,33 the
Court
held:
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
In this regard, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that
a lawyer may be removed or suspended from the practice of law, inter
alia,
for
grossly
immoral
conduct.
Thus:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on
what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis ours)
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Associates as their counsel for the reason that they can no longer
afford the services of a private counsel.
Surprisingly, on the same day, the complainants executed a Judicial
Affidavit, disclaiming knowledge and participation in the preparation
of the complaint and the pleadings filed on their behalf by Atty. Paras
in connection with the disbarment case against the respondents.
They claimed that they merely signed the pleadings but the contents
thereof were not explained to them in a dialect which they
understood. They likewise expressed lack of intention to file a
disbarment case against the respondents and that, on the contrary,
they were very much willing to settle and pay their indebtedness to
them. Further, they asserted that it was not the respondents, but
Atty. Paras who instructed them not to attend the pre-trial conference
of the cases which eventually resulted to a judgment by default
against them. They claimed that Atty. Paras told them that he will be
the one to attend the pre-trial conference to settle matters with the
respondents and the court but he did not show up on the scheduled
date. They also asseverated that most of the statements contained in
the complaint for disbarment were false and that they wished to
withdraw the said complaint.
Issue: Whether the statements of the complainants, specifically
contesting the truthfulness of the allegations hurled against the
respondents in their own complaint for disbarment necessarily
results to Franciscos absolution.
Held: No. A case for suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainants, if the
facts proven so warrant.23 It follows that the withdrawal of the
complainant from the case, or even the filing of an affidavit of
desistance, does not conclude the administrative case against an
erring lawyer. This is so because the misconduct of a lawyer is
deemed a violation of his oath to keep sacred the integrity of the
profession for which he must be disciplined. The power to discipline
lawyers who are officers of the court may not be cut short by
compromise and withdrawal of the charges. This is as it should be,
especially when we consider that the law profession and its exercise
is one impressed with public interest. Proceedings to discipline erring
members of the bar are not instituted to protect and promote the
public good only but also to maintain the dignity of the profession by
the weeding out of those who have proven themselves unworthy
thereof.
The complainants forgiveness or even withdrawal from the case
does not ipso facto obliterate the misconduct committed by
Francisco. To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the
complainants to withdraw the disbarment case considering that they
had already presented and supported their claims with convincing
and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated a resolution on
the basis thereof. To be clear, [i]n administrative cases for
disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof
required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof
rests upon the complainant.25 In the present case, it was clearly
established that Francisco received P20,000.00 as initial payment
from the complainants in compliance with the terms of their out-ofcourt settlement for the payment of the latters outstanding
obligations. The amount was duly received and acknowledged by
Francisco, who drafted the same in a paper with the letterhead of his
own law office, a fact he did not deny. While the respondents deny
that they told the complainants not to attend the pre-trial of the case
anymore and that they will be the one to inform the trial court of the
settlement, they did not bring the said agreement to the attention of
the court. Thus, the trial court, oblivious of the settlement of the
parties, rendered a judgment by default against the complainants.
The respondents even filed a motion for execution of the decision but
still did not inform the trial court of the out-of-court settlement
between them and the complainants. They deliberately failed to
mention this supervening event to the trial court, hence, violating the
standards of honesty provided for in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states:
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
FACTS:
In this consolidated administrative case, complainants Jessie T.
Campugan and Robert C. Torres seek the disbarment of the
following respondents:
1. Atty. Federico S. Tolentino, Jr., (counsel of defendant Ramon and
Josefina Ricafort)
2. Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., (counsel of complainants)
3. Atty. Renato G. Cunanan, (Acting Registrar)
4. Atty. Elbert T. Quilalav (Chief Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City)
5. Atty. Constante P. Caluya, Jr. (Deputy Register of Deeds)
for allegedly falsifying a court order that became the basis for the
cancellation of their annotation of the notice of adverse claim and the
notice of lis pendens in the Registry of Deeds in Quezon
City.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The complainants alleged that from the time of the issuance by the
RTC of the order dated May 16, 2008, they could no longer locate or
contact Atty. Victorio, Jr. despite making several phone calls and
visits to his office. They found out upon verification at the Register of
Deeds of Quezon City that their previous annotations were cancelled
based on a letter request filed by Atty. Tolentino as well as the RTCs
order granting the Motion to Withdraw Complaint.
Feeling aggrieved by their discovery, the complainants filed an
appeal en consulta with the Land Registration Authority (LRA),
docketed as Consulta No. 4707, assailing the unlawful cancellation
of their notice of adverse claim and their notice of lis pendens. The
LRA set Consulta No. 4707 for hearing and directed the parties to
submit their respective memoranda. However, the records do not
disclose whether Consulta No. 4707 was already resolved, or
remained pending at the LRA.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Even assuming that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. initiated
ahd participated in the settlement of the case, there was nothing
wrong in their doing so. It was actually their obligation as lawyers to
do so, pursuant to Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that
a lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. In fine, the
presumption of the validity of the amicable settlement stands.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Atty. Victorio, Jr. could not be faulted for the perceived inattention to
any other matters subsequent to the termination of the Civil Case.
Unless otherwise expressly stipulated between them at any time
during the engagement, the complainants had no right to assume
that Atty. Victorio, Jr.'s legal representation was indefinite as to
extend to his representation of them in the LRA. The Law Profession
did not burden its members with the responsibility of indefinite
service to the clients; hence, the rendition of professional services
depends on the agreement between the attorney and the client. Atty.
Victorio, Jr.'s alleged failure to respond to the complainants' calls or
visits, or to provide them with his whereabouts to enable them to
have access to him despite the termination of his engagement in
Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 did not equate to abandonment without
the credible showing that he continued to come under the
professional obligation towards them after the termination of the Civil
Case.
The Court DISMISSED the baseless disbarment complaints against
respondents.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
10
received from complainant was not enough to fully pay the filing fees.
Furthermore, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to refund the amount of
P48,000.00 that complainant gave him despite repeated demands,
viz.:
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS
AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
xxxx
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand. x x x.
Verily, 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 money was not used accordingly, the same
must be immediately returned to the client. A lawyers failure to
return the money to his client despite numerous demands is a
violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of
integrity, as in this case.
Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence
as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in
such matters of professional employment, and hence, must be
disciplined accordingly.
Having established respondents administrative liability, the Court
now determines the proper penalty to be imposed.
Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers
neglected their clients affairs and, at the same time, failed to return
the latters money and/or property despite demand, the Court meted
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. The Court
finds it appropriate that respondent be meted with the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Finally, the Court sustains the directive for respondent to account for
or return the amount of P48,000.00 to complainant. It is well to note
that while the Court has previously held that disciplinary
proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the
respondent-lawyers 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. Since the aforesaid amount was
intended to answer for filing fees which is intimately related to the
lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondent, the
Court finds the return thereof to be in order.
11
FACTS:
Ms. Sosa alleged that she extended a loan to Atty. Mendoza. 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.
The check was subsequently returned or dishonored as it was
Drawn against Insufficient Funds. Ms. Sosa then obtained the
services of Atty. Cabrera to legally address Atty. Mendozas failure to
pay. 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 and did not, in
any manner, contact Ms. Sosa to explain why he failed 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.
Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Mendoza liable not only
administratively but also civilly.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted with modification the findings
of the Investigating Commissioner as to the finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules and considering that [the respondent] is
guilty of misconduct for his failure to pay a just and valid debt, Atty.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
12
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mendoza should be suspended for gross
misconduct, by reason of his non-payment despite the fact that
several demands were made.
HELD:
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.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Also, 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. Mendozas 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. Mendozas 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. Sosas 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.
Other than his claim that he was disposing of real properties in order
to settle his obligation, Atty. Mendoza failed to explain why he failed
to pay despite his admission of a just and valid loan. Whatever his
reasons or excuses may be, dire financial condition does not justify
non-payment of debt, as we have held in Yuhico.
[A] lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
13
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
14
Because the matter before us is not a civil action for the collection
money, we cannot order Atty. Mendoza to pay his outstanding loan.
We can only clarify that our ruling in this case is without prejudice to
any future civil or criminal action that Ms. Sosa, if she so decides,
may file against Atty. Mendoza in the future. Our action likewise is
without prejudice to any action we may take that is not based on the
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, ATTY. MANUEL V.
MENDOZA is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility with a STERN WARNING that commission of the
same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a
more severe penalty.
KEEPING MULTIPLE NOTARIAL REGISTERS; DUTY TO ACT
WITH COURTESY; DOUBLE DEALING WITH CLIENTS
A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015
Further, Atty. Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client
since she did not personally hire him as her counsel. Gimeno
engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously worked as an
associate. The real counsel of Gimeno and her relatives in their
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
15
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
16
person, other than the notary public, should perform it. On the other
hand, entries in a notarial register need to be in chronological
sequence in order to address and prevent the rampant practice of
leaving blank spaces in the notarial register to allow the antedating of
notarizations.
This Court stresses that a notary public should not
trivialize his functions as his powers and duties are impressed
with public interest. A notary public's office is not merely an
income-generating venture. It is a public duty that each lawyer who
has been privileged to receive a notarial commission must faithfully
and conscientiously perform. The investigating commissioner
properly noted that Atty. Zaide should not be held liable for
representing conflicting clients' interests.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
In Aninon v. Sabitsana, the Court laid down the tests to determine if
a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interests between and
among his clients. One of these tests is whether the acceptance of
a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty. Another test is whether a lawyer would
be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client
any confidential information acquired through their connection
or previous employment.
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide
appeared against Gimeno, his former law firm's client. The lawyerclient relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when
Atty. Zaide left ZMZ. Moreover, the case where Gimeno engaged
ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and is not in any
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
17
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
18
al.
"The Court cannot close this case without making the observation
that it frowns at the practice of counsel v/ho filed the original
complaint in this case of omitting any specification of the amount of
damages in the prayer although the amount of over Seventy-Eight
Million Pesos (P78,000,000.00) is alleged in the body of the
complaint. This is clearly intended for no other purpose than to
evade the payment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the
docket clerk in theassessmentof the filing fee."
In that case, the Court observed that the lawyer's act of omitting any
specification of the amount of damages in the prayer of the
complaint, although the amount was alleged in its body, "was clearly
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
After a careful study of the import of the Manchester doctrine and the
arguments of the parties, the court find as the Investigating
Commissioner did -that the respondents did not commit any violation
of the Code of Professional Conduct.
We stress that the main issue in disbarment cases is whether or not
a lawyer has committed serious professional misconduct sufficient to
cause disbarment. The test is whether the lawyer's conduct shows
him or her to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and
good demeanor; or whether it renders him or her unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.The burden of proof rests upon the
complainant; and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if
the complainant establishes the complaint with clearly preponderant
evidence.
Contrary to the complainant's allegation that the respondents had
defrauded the court, the element of "deceitful conduct" or "deceit"
was not present in this case.
First, the prayer in the complaint clearly showed that there was a
clear and express reference to paragraph 2.27 of the complaint,
which listed and described in detail the date of the checks, the check
numbers, and their corresponding amounts.
Third, despite the complainant's move for the dismissal of Case No.
70251 on the ground that the proper docket fees were not paid, the
RTC Pasig Clerk of Court neither reassessed the filing fees, nor
required the plaintiff in that case to pay additional filing fees.
19
Fourth, even as of this date, the Court in Civil Case No. 70251 has
not issued an order requiring the reassessment, recomputation,
and/or payment of additional docket fees, signifying that the RTC
Pasig Clerk of Court did not make any mistake in the assessment of
the docket fees.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
20
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
21
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
22
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
23
clients engage his services only to lose their case due to Atty.
Lavadia's nonchalant attitude. Considering the gravity of Atty.
Lavadia's cavalier actions both to his client and his impertinent
attitude towards the Court, we find the penalty of DISBARMENT as
recommended by the IBP appropriate.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. is
hereby DISBARRED for violating Canons 11 and 18 and Rules
10.03, 12.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from
the Roll of Attorneys.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
24
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
25
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
26
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
27
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
ISSUES:
1) whether respondent was negligent in handling the legal matter
entrusted to him
2) whether respondent acted in bad faith in dealing with complainant
Lazareto and his family.
28
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
29
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
30
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
31
Held: NO. A simple reading of the Official Receipt, the parties clearly
intended the payment of P5,000 to serve as acceptance fee of the
respondent, and not attorney's fee. Moreover, both parties expressly
claimed that they intended such payment as the acceptance fee of
the respondent. Absent any other evidence showing a contrary
intention of the parties, we find that the Investigating Commissioner
gravely erred in referring to the amount to be returned by the
respondent as attorney's fee.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
32
Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he
is expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his
client's cause with diligence, care and devotion. In this case, the
complainant alleged that she requested the respondent to draft a
Motion to Reduce Bail Bond which was denied by the latter. She also
claimed that the respondent failed to attend any of the hearings
before the MTC. Thus, the complainant filed the present complaint
for disbarment on the ground of abandonment or neglect of duty. On
the other hand, the respondent denied the allegation that he failed to
draft the Motion to Reduce Bail Bond and submitted a copy of the
MTC Order granting the motion to reduce bail. He also justified his
failure to attend the hearings before the MTC to the failure of the
process server to provide him with a Notice of Hearing. Other than
her bare allegations, the complainant failed to present any evidence
to support her claim that the respondent committed abandonment or
neglect of duty. Absent any fault or negligence on the part of the
respondent, we see no legal basis for the order of the Investigating
Commissioner to return the attorney's fee (acceptance fee) of
P5,000.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
33
COURTS RULING:
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. A lawyer's first
duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
34
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
The above is the other basis for this administrative complaint for
being in violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Respondents contention: Orlando denied the charges against him
and claimed that his late submission of the third MCLE compliance is
not a ground for disbarment and that the Notice to Terminate
Services of Counsel and Compromise Agreement were all made
upon the request of Marcelo when the latter was declared in default
in the aforementioned civil case. Moreover, he insisted that the
allegedly offensive language in his text messages sent to Marcelo
was used in a "brother-to-brother communication" and were uttered
in good faith.
Meanwhile, the criminal case for grave threats and estafa filed by
Marcelo against Orlando was downgraded to unjust vexation, which
Orlando voluntarily pleaded guilty consisting in his act of vexing or
annoying Marcelo by "texting insulting, threatening and persuading
words to drop his lawyer over a case x x x.
IBP Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case, which
was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
35
ISSUE/s:
(1) W/N the transgression to the MCLE compliance requirement is a
ground for disbarment.
(2) W/N the insulting and offensive private messages of Orlando are
violative of the CPR.
HELD:
(1) NO. The failure to disclose the required information for MCLE
compliance in the complaint for damages he had filed against his
brother Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his violation
shall only be cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the
expunction thereof from the records.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
The IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother
Marcelo as casual communications considering that they were
conveyed privately. To the Court's mind, however, the tenor of the
messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly
intended to malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of
the word "polpol" (stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that
Marcelo immediately terminate the services of Maximino indicates
Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation of the
above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to
the crime of unjust vexation was an admission that he spoke ill,
insulted, and disrespected Maximino - a departure from the judicial
decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
36
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for
entering into a Compromise Agreement without his clients consent,
then refusing to turn over the settlement proceeds received.
37
Even if such authority was given, the SPA still cannot justify the
Compromise Agreement on February 14, 2006. The SPA was
executed on September 16, 2002 before the filing of the complaint.
The conclusion seems to be that the authority given was to enter into
a possible settlement during the preliminary conference or pre-trial.
The CPR allows the lawyer to apply the money retained to satisfy his
lawful fees. However. This provision assumes that the client agrees
with the lawyer as to the amount of the attorneys fees and as to the
application of the clients fund to pay his lawful fees and
disbursements.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Atty. Galarrita is suspended from the practice of law for 2 years, with
a stern warning. He is ordered to return to the complainant Luna the
amount of P100,000 with legal interest of 6% per annum from
February 2006 until fully paid, without prejudice to the filing of a
collection case for retainers fee against complainant Luna.
Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR which prohibits a
lawyer from representing conflicting interests and which enjoins a
lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with clients.
MABINI COLLEGES v. ATTY PAJARILLO
A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
38
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
39
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
40
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
41
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
42
Mary Ann T. Flores, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jovencio LL. Mayor, Jr.,
Respondent
A.C. NO. 7314, August 25, 2015
Per Curiam
FACTS: Jose Roberto Flores, herein complainants husband, filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against JMJB International Services,
Inc. before the NLRC. Flores case was raffled to respondent Labor
Arbiter Mayor Jr. Respondent ruled that there was no illegal
dismissal as Flores voluntarily resigned from employment. Flores
appealed the case to the NLRC, but the appeal was dismissed for
having filed out of time. Flores thereafter elevated the case to the CA
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
and the latter reversed the ruling of the NLRC finding that the appeal
was timely filed. The CA declared the NLRC ruling null and void and
granted monetary award to Flores. Consequently, counsel of Flores
then filed a motion for execution of the CAs decision. Counsel of
Flores received from the CA a Notice of Transmittal of Records of
Case addressed to the Clerk of Court of the NLRC. As respondent
was not acting on the Motion for Execution, the counsel of Flores
filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation praying that the motion be
resolved with dispatch. Flores counsel subsequently learned that the
records of the case were still being requested from the Records
Section of the NLRC. The Records Officer of the NLRC likewise
disclosed that case records had been sent for archiving and were
difficult to retrieve. Two years after this reception of information,
respondent Mayor, Jr. finally issued a Writ of Execution against
JMJB International Services, Inc. By that time, the corporation had
not yet been dissolved, but had already amended its name to F.O.
Maidin International Services, Inc. This amendment prompted the
counsel of Flores to file a Motion to Amend Writ of Execution.
Respondent, however, refused to act on the motion, reasoning that
F.O. Maidin International Services, Inc. was not a party to the case.
Accordingly, complainant filed an administrative case against
respondent, citing that the latter's act of archiving the records of the
labor case and refusal to amend the Writ of Execution constituted a
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and other ethical standards. IBP Commisioner
recommended that respondent be disbarred. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and affirmed IBP Commisioners
recommendation but modified the penalty of disbarment to
suspension for 3 years. Respondent moved to reconsider, but the
IBP Board of Governors denied the same and instead reinstated the
penalty of disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and other
ethical standards.
HELD: YES. Respondent was clearly neglectful of duty and
ignorant of the law in failing to immediately act on the Motion
43
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
44
January 2009. In the same letter, the MCLE Governing Board noted
that respondent neither applied for exemption nor complied with the
Third Compliance period from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010.
In his Compliance and Comment, respondent alleged that he did not
receive a copy of the 5 August 2013 letter of Atty. Reyes. He stated
that he was wondering why his application for exemption could not
be granted. He further alleged that he did not receive a formal denial
of his application for exemption by the MCLE Governing Board, and
that the notice sent by Prof. Feliciano was based on the letter of
complainant who belonged to Romualdo and Arnado Law Office, the
law office of his political opponents, the Romualdo family.
Respondent alleged that the Romualdo family controlled Camiguin
and had total control of the judges and prosecutors in the province.
He further alleged that the law firm had control of the lawyers in
Camiguin except for himself. Respondent further claimed that he had
written five books. Thus, he asked for a reconsideration of the notice
for him to undergo MCLE. He asked for an exemption from MCLE
compliance, or in the alternative, for him to be allowed to practice law
while complying with the MCLE requirements.
The Office of the Bar Confidant reported that respondent failed to
meet the requirements necessary for the exemption. The OBC found
that respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities as a lawyer.
The OBC stated that respondent's failure to comply with the MCLE
requirements jeopardized the causes of his clients because the
pleadings he filed could be stricken off from the records and
considered invalid. The OBC recommended that respondent be
declared a delinquent member of the Bar and guilty of noncompliance with the MCLE requirements. The OBC further
recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for
six months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. The OBC
also recommended that respondent be directed to comply with the
requirements set forth by the MCLE Governing Board.
HELD: YES. Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to
undergo continuing legal education "to ensure that throughout their
career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the
ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of
law."
The records of the MCLE Office showed that respondent failed to
comply with the four compliance periods. The records also showed
that respondent filed an application for exemption only on 5 January
2009. According to the MCLE Governing Board, respondent's
application for exemption covered the First and Second Compliance
Periods. Respondent did not apply for exemption for the Third
Compliance Period. The MCLE Governing Board denied
respondent's application for exemption on 14 January 2009 on the
ground that the application did not meet the requirements of
expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.
Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities by failing
to comply with Bar Matter No. 850. His application for exemption for
the First and Second Compliance Periods was filed after the
compliance periods had ended. He did not follow-up the status of his
application for exemption. He furnished the Court with his letter
dated 7 February 2012 to the MCLE Office asking the office to act on
his application for exemption but alleged that his secretary failed to
send it to the MCLE Office. He did not comply with the Fourth
Compliance Period.
Even if respondent attended the 10-14 February 2014 MCLE
Program of UP Diliman, it would only cover his deficiencies for the
First Compliance Period. He is still delinquent for the Second, Third,
and Fourth Compliance Periods. The Court has not been furnished
proof of compliance for the First Compliance Period.
The Court notes the lackadaisical attitude of respondent towards
Complying with the requirements of Bar Matter No. 850. He assumed
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
45
that his application for exemption, filed after the compliance periods,
would be granted. He purportedly wrote the MCLE Office to follow-up
the status of his application but claimed that his secretary forgot to
send the letter.
The MCLE Office is not without fault in this case. While it acted on
respondent's application for exemption on 14 January 2009, it took
the office three years to inform respondent of the denial of his
application. However, after he had been informed of the denial of his
application for exemption, it still took respondent one year to file a
motion for reconsideration. After the denial of his motion for
reconsideration, respondent still took, and is still asking, his time to
satisfy the requirements of the MCLE. In addition, when respondent
indicated "MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration" in a
pleading, he had not filed any motion for reconsideration before the
MCLE Office.
Respondent's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and
disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office warrant his declaration
as a delinquent member of the IBP.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
46
ISSUE: Whether or not the IBP correctly found Atty. Gasmen liable
for violation of the Notarial Rules and the CPR.
HELD: The Court notes that both the SPA and the loan application
subject of this case were notarized in 2000, during which Act No.
2711 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Title IV, Chapter
11, otherwise known as the "Notarial Law," in addition to Act No.
2103, governed the rules on notaries public.
Section 1. x x x
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person
involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
47
As to the proper penalty, the Court finds the need to modify the
penalty recommended by the IBP. The Court has ruled that a notary
public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the
following penalties: (7) revocation of notarial commission; (2)
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3)
suspension from the practice of law - the terms of which vary based
on the circumstances of each case. In this case, while the IBP
Commissioner found the absence of bad faith and considered Atty.
Gasmen as a first time offender, the Court finds that the penalties of
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a
period of two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for
one (1) year are proper.26 On this score, the Court observes that
Atty. Gasmen did not deny notarizing the documents without the
presence of Sappayani and indirectly admitted doing the same with
other similar documents and affiants. Thus, such practice, he
evidently countenanced fraud.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
48
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
49
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
50
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
51
Third, in subsequent pleadings, some details copied from Atty. Natuel were discarded while some were retained. The December 8, 2010
Reply still bore Atty. Natu-el's Roll of Attorneys number and MCLE
compliance number, but no longer his IBP official receipt number and
professional tax receipt number. The July 15, 2011 Motion for
Reconsideration only bore Atty. Natu-el's MCLE compliance number.
This gradual act of segregating informationdiscarding some while
retaining others, and retaining less over timereveals that the
author of these markings must have engaged in a willful exercise
that filtered those that were to be discarded from those that were to
be retained.
Respondent is rightly considered the author of these acts. Any claim
that the error was committed by a secretary is inconsequential.
In his Comment, respondent provided what are supposedly his
correct professional details. We emphasize, however, that he failed
to attach to his Comment copies of the pertinent official receipts,
certifications, and other supporting documents. All that he relies on is
a self-serving recital of numbers and dates. None but respondent,
himself, was in a better position to produce the documents that could
prove his claims. His failure to do so is, at the very least, suspicious.
It can very well mean that they do not exist, or that he willfully
desisted from producing them. The latter would be more damaging to
respondent, as it calls into operation the basic presumption "[t]hat
evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced."
In any case, even assuming that the details provided by respondent
in his Comment are correct, it still remains that he (1) used a false
IBP official receipt number, professional tax receipt number, Roll of
Attorneys number, and MCLE compliance number a total of seven
(7) times; and (2) used another lawyer's details seven (7) times.
It is unsettling that respondent engaged in the mockery and ridicule
that he did of the very same badgeshis place in the Roll of
Attorneys, his membership in the Integrated Bar, his recognition as a
practicing professional, his continuing training and competencethat
are emblematic of his being a lawyer. Seeing as how he manifested
such contempt for these badges, we find that there is every reason
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
52
In his undated Answer, respondent opted not to present any counterstatement of facts in support of his defense. Instead, respondent
simply argued that the petition suffers from procedural and
substantive infirmities, claiming that petitioner failed to substantiate
the allegations or charges against him.
HELD: Yes. Good moral character is not only required for admission
to the Bar, but must also be retained in order to maintain ones good
standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. The Court has
consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings
against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence,
and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the
allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or
disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the
evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine
mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
53
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
did not reflect the true intention of the parties. They also asserted
that based on quantum meruit, Atty. Mendoza is not entitled to the
claimed attorneys fees because they lost in one case and he failed
to accomplish the titling of the land awarded to them, which would
have enhanced the property. In this Civil Case, Felicisima and her
siblings engaged the services of Atty. Navarro as their counsel.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Atty. Mendoza, stating that
Felicisima failed to substantiate her claim that she did not enter into
a contingency contract for legal services with Atty. Mendoza. They
were ordered to pay Atty. Mendoza P1, 258,000.00, representing
attorneys fees, as well as cost of suit. Atty. Navarro then filed a
Notice of Appeal on behalf of Felicisima. However, Atty. Mendoza
moved for an execution pending appeal with the RTC and since no
opposition was filed, the RTC granted the said motion and issued a
writ of execution, resulting in the levy and eventual transfer of
Felicisimas properties in favor of Atty. Mendoza as the highest
bidder in an execution sale. The CA ordered Felicisima to file an
appellants brief but Atty. Navarro failed to file the same within the
reglementary period, consequently leading to its dismissal for noncompliance with Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
On June 3, 2003, Felicisima filed a complaint-affidavit for disbarment
before the Supreme Court against Atty. Mendoza for allegedly
deceiving her into signing a Contract for Service by taking advantage
of her illiteracy and against Atty. Navarro for dereliction of duty in
handling her case before the CA, causing her properties to be levied
and sold at public auction.
In his Comment, Atty. Mendoza avers that he has been a lawyer
since 1954 and retired sometime in 1983 due to partial disability. He
went back to practicing his profession in 1996 on a selective basis
due to his disability but completely stopped a year after. Being 82
years of age at the time of filing his comment, Atty. Mendoza admits
that he is now totally disabled, cannot walk on his own, cannot even
write and sign his name, and can only move about with the help of
his family for he has been suffering from a severe case of "acute
gouty arthritic attack" which causes extreme difficulty in moving
54
virtually all his joints. He points out that he had previously handled
pro bono a concubinage case filed by Felicisima against her
husband, having yielded to her repeated pleas as she was then
financially hard-up and psychologically distraught. For the application
with the CENRO and LMB, he agreed to be paid for his legal
services on a contingent basis, which contract was subsequently
found by the RTC to be valid. When it was time to collect his
attorney's fees, Felicisima and her siblings refused to pay him
without any justifiable reason and even threatened to shoot him if he
continued to press for his compensation. This left Atty. Mendoza with
no other recourse but to avail of the judicial process to enforce his
claim.
On his part, Atty. Navarro asserts that he did his best to win
Felicisima's case although he was unsuccessful. He explains that
even before handling Felicisima's case, he had been saddled by
many cases involving politicians and sympathizers, having previously
served as councilor in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas for
two consecutive terms. He thus emphasized to Felicisima that in
order to "keep the case alive", he could file the Notice of Appeal in
her behalf, and instructed her to look for another lawyer who has the
time to attend to her case and that she would return to him only
when she failed to get one. However, Atty. Navarro admits that since
he was too preoccupied with so many cases in the local courts, he
had altogether forgotten about Felicisima's case, not having seen her
again as per their agreement.
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) submitted her Report and Recommendation finding
Atty. Mendoza guilty of taking advantage of Felicisima's ignorance
just to have the Contract for Service signed. She held that Atty.
Mendoza violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him, as well as Rule 20.04, Canon 20 which exhorts lawyers to avoid
controversies with clients concerning matters of compensation and to
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
As to Atty. Navarro, the Investigating Commissioner held that his
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
RULING:
1. Atty. Mendoza is NOT guilty of allegedly deceiving his
client.
55
Atty. Mendoza.
It bears to stress that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this
jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid and binding but must
be laid down in an express contract. The validity of contingent fees
depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount
fixed as contingent fee under the circumstances of the case.
Nevertheless, when it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee
was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his
client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is
clearly excessive, the Court must, and will protect the aggrieved
party.
Apart from the allegations in her affidavit-complaint, Felicisima failed
to establish by clear and satisfactory proof of the deception allegedly
committed by Atty. Mendoza when she agreed in writing for the
latter's contingent fees. Fraud and irregularity in the execution of
their contingency fee contract cannot be deduced from the fact alone
that Atty. Mendoza filed suit to enforce their contract.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
56
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
57
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
Bartolome vs Basilio
AC No. 10783 | October 14, 2015 | Perlas-Bernabe. J.:
Facts: Bartolome alleged that Basilio, a notary public in Tarlac City,
notarized a document entitled "Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and
Aggregate Landholdings purportedly subscribed and sworn to
before him by Tanedo and Lim despite the fact that Taedo had
already passed away three years before the signing.
In his Answer, Basilio admitted having notarized the Joint Affidavit
but claimed that, prior to the notarization, he verified the identities of
the persons who appeared before him through their respective Social
Security System (SSS) identification cards and driver's licenses. He
further denied any knowledge that the one who appeared before him
58
The Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one
(1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if
any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary
public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a
repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
Issue: whether or not the IBP correctly found Basilio liable for
violation of the Notarial Rules.
Held: YES. As the records bear out, Basilio affixed his official
signature and seal on the notarial certificate of the Joint Affidavit
without properly identifying the person/s who signed the same. His
claim that he verified the identities of the affiants through their
respective SSS identification cards and driver's licenses cannot be
given any credence considering the ostensible lack of their details on
the face of the certificate. Neither was he able to provide the fact of
identification in any way. On the other hand, it has been established
that one of the named signatories to the Joint Affidavit was already
dead when he notarized the aforesaid document. Hence, it is
sufficiently clear that Basilio had indeed affixed his official signature
and seal on an incomplete, if not false, notarial certificate.
Moreover, by the same account, Basilio the Notarial Rules that
prohibits the notarization of a document if the person involved is not
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
59
Sonia narrated that her illicit relationship with Atty. Dabon started
sometime in November 2000 and ended in March 2006 when she,
bothered by her conscience, decided to break it off; that Atty. Dabon
relentlessly pursued her for years and even admitted that he fell in
love with her the first time he laid eyes on her; that on November 13,
2000, Atty. Dabon lured her to what appeared to be a mere friendly
lunch date, managed to put sleep-inducing drug into her food or drink
causing her to feel drowsy and weak and, thereafter, brought her to
Victoria Court Motel where he sexually molested her while she was
asleep; that she opted to keep silent about the incident for fear of its
adverse repercussions of shame and embarrassment to her and her
family; that she pleaded with Atty. Dabon to leave her and forget
what had happened, but the respondent instead taunted her by
laughing at her misery; that since then, Atty. Dabon succeeded in
having repeated carnal knowledge of her once or twice a week
through intimidation and threats; that Atty. Dabon threatened her that
he would tell everyone that she had been playing around with him, if
she would not yield to his lascivious cravings; and that she suffered
in silence for years and submitted herself to the bestial desires of
Atty. Dabon, until she even thought that she was in love with him.
Sonia further claimed that after years of living in deception and
infidelity, she decided to call it quits with Atty. Dabon sometime in
March 2006 but he could not let go of their relationship; that Atty.
Dabon started pestering and threatening her through phone calls and
handwritten messages in vile attempts to persuade her to continue
their illicit affair; that despite their break-up, Atty. Dabon still pursued
his lustful quest by bringing her to Anito Motel, along Quirino Avenue
on March 10, 2006, but she foiled his plan when she went ballistic
prompting the respondent to drive her back to the CA; that on March
13, 2006, Atty. Dabon forcibly boarded her car and pleaded for
forgiveness and reconciliation but she remained firm in her resolve to
end the affair; that she had to seek the assistance of her officemates,
just to convince Atty. Dabon to alight from her car as the said
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
60
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
HELD: YES. After due consideration, the Court resolves to adopt the
findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Lawyers have been
repeatedly reminded by the Court that 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 legal
profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's bounden duty to observe
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's
integrity, and the legal profession exacts from its members nothing
less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar,
free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their
exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the
highest degree of morality.
61
Further, the Court cannot fathom why Sonia never reported the
alleged sexual abuse to the police, if such was the truth. She could
have placed the respondent behind bars and put an end to her
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
claimed misery. The Court is left with the most logical conclusion that
Sonia freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral
relationship with Atty. Dabon sans any threat and intimidation.
62
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA