A.C. No. 10135. January 15, 2014.

*
EDGARDO AREOLA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIA
VILMA MENDOZA, respondent.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; It

is the mandate of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that „a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.‰·Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised
her clients to approach the judge and plead for compassion so that
their motions would be granted. This admission corresponds to one
of AreolaÊs charges against Atty. Mendoza · that she told her
clients „Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na
kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.‰ Atty. Mendoza made it appear that
the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such
as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed. As
such, the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

174

Court agrees with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board
of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her
clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that „a
lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.‰ Rule 15.07
states that „a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with
the laws and the principles of fairness.‰
Same; Same; It must be remembered that a lawyerÊs duty is not
to his client but to the administration of justice; Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in
the pursuit of his devotion to his clientÊs cause, is condemnable and
unethical.·Atty. MendozaÊs improper advice only lessens the
confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to
judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors
according to the merits of a case. Atty. MendozaÊs careless remark is
uncalled for. It must be remembered that a lawyerÊs duty is not to
his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his
clientÊs success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and
must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any
means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clientÊs cause, is
condemnable and unethical.
Same; Disbarment; Suspension; Disbarment and suspension of
a lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction,
should be imposed with great caution and only in those cases where
the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member
of the bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
·The Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2) months as
excessive and not commensurate to Atty. MendozaÊs infraction.
Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe
forms of disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great caution
and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the bar is established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. The Court notes that when Atty.
Mendoza made the remark „Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin
at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon‰, she was not
compelled by bad faith or malice. While her remark was
inappropriate and unbe-

175

coming, her comment is not disparaging and reproachful so as to

cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary.
Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Length of Service; Factors
such as the respondentÊs length of service, the respondentÊs
acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse,
family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations,
respondentÊs advanced age, among other things, have had varying
significance in the CourtÊs determination of the imposable penalty.·
In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from
imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors.
Factors such as the respondentÊs length of service, the respondentÊs
acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse,
family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations,
respondentÊs advanced age, among other things, have had varying
significance in the CourtÊs determination of the imposable penalty.
The Court takes note of Atty. MendozaÊs lack of ill-motive in the
present case and her being a PAO lawyer as her main source of
livelihood. Furthermore, the complaint filed by Areola is clearly
baseless and the only reason why this was ever given consideration
was due to Atty. MendozaÊs own admission. For these reasons, the
Court deems it just to modify and reduce the penalty recommended
by the IBP Board of Governors.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation

of AttorneyÊs Oath of Office, Deceit, Malpractice or Other
Gross Misconduct in Office and Violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This refers to the administrative complaint[1] filed by
Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. Muhammad Khadafy
against

_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-10.

176

Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), from the

Public AttorneyÊs Office (PAO) for violation of her attorneyÊs
oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct
in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, and for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
In the letter-complaint dated November 13, 2006
addressed to the Honorable Commissioners, Commission
on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in
behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca,
Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez and Elizabeth
Perez. He alleged that on October 23, 2006, during
PrisonersÊ Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City
Jail and called all detainees with pending cases before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City
where she was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture.[2]
Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the following
during her speech:

„O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may

pangpiyansa o pang​-​ areglo ay maging praktikal sana
 kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang
makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo
ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang
pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge
Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong
mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan
lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon.‰[3]

Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling

more than 100 cases, all detainees should prepare and
furnish her with their Sinumpaang Salaysay so that she
may know the

_______________
[2] Id., at p. 3.
[3] Id., at p. 4.

177

facts of their cases and their defenses and also to give her
the necessary payment for their transcript of stenographic
notes.[4]
Areola furthermore stated that when he helped his co-
inmates in drafting their pleadings and filing motions
before the RTC Branch 73, Antipolo City, Atty. Mendoza
undermined his capability, to wit:
(1) Atty. Mendoza purportedly scolded detainee
Seronda when she learned that the latter was assisted by
Areola in filing a Motion to Dismiss for Violation of
Republic Act No. 8942 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) in the
latterÊs criminal case for rape, which was pending before
the RTC, Branch 73, Antipolo City. She got angrier when
Seronda retorted that he allowed Areola to file the motion
for him since there was nobody to help him.
(2) Areola assisted Spouses Danilo and Elizabeth Perez
in filing their Joint Motion for Consolidation of Trial of
Consolidated Offenses and Joint Motion to Plead Guilty to
a Lesser Offense. The spouses were likewise scolded for
relying on the Complainant and alleged that the
respondent asked for P2,000.00 to represent them.
(3) Areola helped another co-detainee, Mirador in filing
an „Ex-parte Motion to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense.‰
When Atty. Mendoza learned of it, she allegedly scolded
Mirador and discredited Areola.[5]
 In her unverified Answer[6] dated January 5, 2007, Atty.
Mendoza asseverated that the filing of the administrative
complaint against her is a harassment tactic by Areola as
the latter had also filed several administrative cases
against judges in the courts of Antipolo City including the
jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where Areola was previously
detained. These actuations show that Areola has a
penchant for filing various

_______________
[4] Id.
[5] Id., at pp. 5-9.
[6] Id., at pp. 33-39.

178

charges against anybody who does not accede to his

demand.[7] Atty. Mendoza contended that Areola is not a
lawyer but represented himself to his co-detainees as one.
[8] She alleged that the motions/pleadings prepared and/or
filed by Areola were not proper.
After both parties failed to appear in the Mandatory
Conference set by the IBP on August 15, 2008, the
Investigating Commissioner considered the non-
appearance as a waiver on their part. Nonetheless, in the
interest of justice, both parties were required to submit
their respective position papers.[9]
On December 29, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner
issued his Report and Recommendation.[10] The
Investigating Commissioner stated that the Complainant is
knowledgeable in the field of law. While he may be of
service to his fellow detainees, he must, however, be
subservient to the skills and knowledge of a full fledged
lawyer. He however found no convincing evidence to prove
that Atty. Mendoza received money from AreolaÊs co​-
detainees as alleged. The charges against Atty. Mendoza
were also uncorroborated, viz.:

There is no convincing evidence that will prove that the

respondent received money from the inmates since the
charges are uncorroborated. In fact, the complainant is not
the proper party to file the instant case since he was not
directly affected or injured by the act/s being complained of.
No single affidavits of the affected persons were attached to
prove the said charges. Hence, it is simply hearsay in nature.
 [11]

Nonetheless, Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer

that she advised her clients and their relatives to approach
the judge and the fiscal „to beg and cry‰ so that their
motions

_______________
[7] Id., at p. 33.
[8] Id., at p. 35.
[9] Id., at p. 145.
[10] Id., at pp. 141-150.
[11] Id., at p. 148.

179

would be granted and their cases against them would be

dismissed. To the Investigating Commissioner, this is
highly unethical and improper as the act of Atty. Mendoza
degrades the image of and lessens the confidence of the
public in the judiciary.[12] The Investigating Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Mendoza be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) months.[13]
In a Notice of Resolution[14] dated November 19, 2011,
the Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
Atty. Mendoza sought to reconsider the Resolution[15]
dated November 19, 2011 but the IBP Board of Governors
denied her motion in its Resolution[16] dated May 10, 2013.
The Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors was
transmitted to the Court for final action pursuant to Rule
139-B, Section 12, Paragraph b[17] of the Revised Rules of
Court.

The CourtÊs Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records, the Court

finds that the instant Complaint against Atty. Mendoza
profoundly lacks evidence to support the allegations
contained

_______________
[12] Id., at p. 149.
[13] Id., at p. 150.
 [14] Id., at p. 140.
[15] Id., at pp. 158-160.
[16] Id., at p. 165.
[17] Rule 139-B, Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of
Governors.·
xxxx
b)  If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership,
determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of
law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
xxxx

180

therein. All Areola has are empty assertions against Atty.

Mendoza that she demanded money from his co​-detainees.
The Court agrees with the IBP that Areola is not the
proper party to file the Complaint against Atty. Mendoza.
He is not even a client of Atty. Mendoza. He claims that he
filed the Complaint on behalf of his co-​detainees Seronda,
Arca, Mirador and Spouses Perez, but it is apparent that
no document was submitted which would show that they
authorized Areola to file a Complaint. They did not sign the
Complaint he prepared. No affidavit was even executed by
the said co-detainees to substantiate the matters Areola
raised. Consequently, the Court rejects AreolaÊs statements,
especially as regards Atty. MendozaÊs alleged demands of
money.
The Court agrees with the observations of the
Investigating Commissioner that Areola initiated this
complaint when he felt insulted because Atty. Mendoza
refused to acknowledge the pleadings and motions he
prepared for his co-detainees who are PAO clients of Atty.
Mendoza.[18] It appears that Areola is quite knowledgeable
with Philippine laws. However, no matter how good he
thinks he is, he is still not a lawyer. He is not authorized to
give legal advice and file pleadings by himself before the
courts. His familiarity with Philippine laws should be put
to good use by cooperating with the PAO instead of filing
baseless complaints against lawyers and other government
authorities. It seems to the Court that Areola thinks of
himself as more intelligent and better than Atty. Mendoza,
based on his criticisms against her. In his Reply,[19] he
made fun of her grammatical errors and tagged her as
using carabao English.[20] He also called the PAO as „Pa-
Amin Office‰[21] which seriously undermines the reputation
of the PAO. While Areola may have been frustrated with
the way

_______________
[18] Rollo, p. 147.
[19] Id., at pp. 48-57.
[20] Id., at p. 55.
[21] Id., at p. 4.

181

the PAO is managing the significant number of cases it

deals with, all the more should he exert efforts to utilize his
knowledge to work with the PAO instead of maligning it.
Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised
her clients to approach the judge and plead for compassion
so that their motions would be granted. This admission
corresponds to one of AreolaÊs charges against Atty.
Mendoza · that she told her clients „Iyak-iyakan lang
ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot
ang puso noon.‰ Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the
judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics
such as begging and crying in order for their cases to be
dismissed.
As such, the Court agrees with the IBP Board of
Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices
to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of
Rule 1.02 that „a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.‰ Rule 15.07 states that „a lawyer shall
impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.‰
Atty. MendozaÊs improper advice only lessens the
confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must
be free to judge, without pressure or influence from
external forces or factors[22] according to the merits of a
case. Atty. MendozaÊs careless remark is uncalled for.
It must be remembered that a lawyerÊs duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his
clientÊs success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and
ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is
 _______________
[22] Ala v. Judge Peras, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2283, November 16, 2011,
660 SCRA 193, 214.

182

resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his

devotion to his clientÊs cause, is condemnable and
unethical.[23]
In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of
suspension for two (2) months as excessive and not
commensurate to Atty. MendozaÊs infraction. Disbarment
and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of
disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great caution
and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[24]
The Court notes that when Atty. Mendoza made the
remark „Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at
palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon‰, she was not
compelled by bad faith or malice. While her remark was
inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is not
disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and
disgrace to the Judiciary.
In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained
from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of
mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondentÊs length
of service, the respondentÊs acknowledgement of his or her
infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances,
humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondentÊs
advanced age, among other things, have had varying
significance in the CourtÊs determination of the imposable
penalty.[25] The Court takes note of Atty. MendozaÊs lack of
ill-motive in the present case and her being a PAO lawyer
as her main source of livelihood.[26] Furthermore, the
complaint filed by Areola is clearly baseless and the only
reason why this was ever given consid-

_______________
[23] Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol v. Florido, A.C. No. 5736,
June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 182, 187.
[24] Buado v. Layag, 479 Phil. 808, 817; 436 SCRA 159, 166 (2004);
Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 341; 410 SCRA 258, 264 (2004).
[25] Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez, 544 Phil. 447, 463; 531 SCRA 477, 479
(2007).
 [26] Rollo, p. 159.

183

eration was due to Atty. MendozaÊs own admission. For

these reasons, the Court deems it just to modify and reduce
the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds
Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper
advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule
15.07 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.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza reprimanded for giving

improper advice to her clients, with stern warning against
repetition of similar act.

Notes.·Dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave

offenses. Long length of service aggravates rather than
mitigates liability of accountable officer. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Espineda, 598 SCRA 168 [2009])
Lawyers must always keep in perspective that since
they are administrators of justice, oath-bound servants of
society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many
suppose, but to the administration of justice. (Bondoc vs.
Aquino-Simbulan, 604 SCRA 416 [2009])
··o0o··

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.