LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and what ANA MARIA KARE, complainant

(case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. CATALINA L. TUMALIUAN, respondent.
AC No. 8777 OCT. 09, 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That complainant sold to respondent her house and lot for the
circumstances that total amount of Php7,100,000.00.
lead to file a case) - That as part of the payment, respondent persuaded
complainant to accept a Toyota Fortuner 2007 model.
Reluctantly, complainant accepted the offer but with the
agreement that the vehicle be covered by a document as proof
of transfer to her.
- That they executed a sale of motor vehicle on Sept. 22, 2009,
which states that the vehicle’s value was Php1,000,000.00, but
as a result of her bargaining, complainant was able to convince
respondent to place the same at a lower value of
Php900,000.00.
- That respondent merely gave her a photocopy of the Certificate
of Registration and consistently failed to give her the original
CR despite repeated demands. Thus, she was forced to
engage the services of a lawyer to formally demand respondent
to deliver to her the said original, but to no avail.
- That complainant discovered that the subject vehicle was
actually encumbered with a Chattel Mortgage executed by
respondent in favor of BDO.
- That respondent acted with evident bad faith when she
pretended to have the full title and ownership of the subject
vehicle when in truth and in fact, the same was mortgaged with
BDO.
- That if complainant had known of such encumbrance, she
would have demanded for cash payment instead.
- That the deliberate and willful non-disclosure of the existence
of the chattel mortgage was intended to defraud her of the
value of Php900,000.00 which she applied as additional partial
payment, and as a result, she is not greatly prejudiced because
once BDO gains knowledge of the sale, the vehicle can
instantly be taken from her.
Respondent - Respondent accused complainant of perjury for indicating in
(defenses) her complaint that she was not residing at No. 8 Yakal Street,
Vista Real Subdivision, or at the subject house she sold to the
former when she already vacated said address.
- That complainant was at fault when she said that the house
and lot was still registered in her name when the same was
already transferred in the name of the GSIS as a result of the
housing loan she obtained therefrom.
- That complainant violated the rule against forum shopping
when she intentionally failed to disclose the fact that she also
filed a complaint before the office of the city Prosecutor for
 estafa involving the same parties and the same issues.
- That she did not persuade complainant to accept the vehicle as
part of her payment and that it was complainant who dreamed
of owning a Fortuner and requested that the same be given as
part of the purchase price.
- That on the day of the execution of the Sale of Motor Vehicle,
she simultaneously surrendered the vehicle itself together with
the photocopies of the CR and OR.
- That complainant was fully aware of the fact that the subject
vehicle was mortgaged to BDO for a loan that expires in March
2011.
What is the IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be ordered to restitute
recommendation of the Kare and to transfer full title of the subject vehicle to the latter by
IBP-CBD? causing its registration in the latter’s name at respondent’s
expense.

It advised the parties to mutually rescind the contract of sale of

said vehicle with Kare returning the vehicle to Tamulian and
Tamulian returning the Php1,000,000.00 consideration of such
sale.

The BOG of the IBP recommended that Tamulian be suspended

from practice of law for a period of 1 year.
What is the recommendation n/a
of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Dispositive portion (final WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby found GUILTY of committing
decision) dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent acts prejudicial to the legal
profession and in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one year, reckoned from
receipt of this Decision, with WARNING that a similar misconduct
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
What are the core moral Love for truth and respect for one’s reputation.
values that were Selfless love of people and respect for human lives.
ignored?
What are the virtues that Good faith, honesty, lawfulness.
are missing?
What are the vices that Unlawfulness, immorality, bad faith, and deceitfulness.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
that I learned from this deceitful conduct.
case so that no case of
similar can be filed
against me in the future?

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and what MARILU C. TURLA, complainant
(case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. JOSE M. CARINGAL, respondent.
AC No. 11641 MAR. 12, 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That complainant discovered that Atty. Caringal had not
circumstances that attended the required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
lead to file a case) (MCLE) seminars for the 2nd and 3rd Compliance Periods, which
were from April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007 and April 25, 2007 to
April 14, 2010, respectively.
- That respondent still signed the pleadings and motions in
several cases on which he indicated the information after his
signature and other personal details of his MCLE Exemption II
& III.
- As it turned out, the receipt Atty. Caringal pertained to was not
for his MCLE exemption, but for his payment of the MCLE non-
compliance fee.
- Complainant charged respondent with (1) failure to take the
MCLE seminars for the MCLE II & III compliance periods as
required under the Bar Matter No. 850; and (2) violation of his
lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood.
- That although respondent was already confronted with his
deception, he continued to flaunt such duplicity since he still
filed pleadings with the courts afterwards.
- That under Sec. 2, Rule 13 of BM No. 850, respondent’s non-
compliance resulted in his being listed as a delinquent member
and that respondent violated Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court.
- That although respondent had already complied with the MCLE
requirement as of March 10, 2011, she asserted that
respondent had already committed a gross infraction, and
hence should be sanctioned accordingly.
Respondent - Respondent countered that the complaint was a form of
(defenses) harassment since as the counsel for the oppositor in a Special
Proceedings, he had filed motions in the said case for
complainant to undergo DNA testing to prove her filiation with
the deceased over whose estate she was claiming rights.
- Respondent averred that he had taken several units for the first
(MCLE I) Compliance Period, which was from April 15, 2001 to
April 14, 2004, but was unable to complete the required units.
- That during the months of March and April 2008, he
supposedly completed the required units for MCLE II, however
the supervising officer erroneously applied the said units to his
MCLE instead.
- That thereafter, on January 7, 2009, he paid an “exemption
fee” of Php1,000.00 for his uncompleted MCLE I.
- That on January 19, 2009, a Certificate of Compliance was
issued to respondent for his completion of MCLE I.
What is the The investigating commissioner held that Atty. Caringal breached
recommendation of the his oath to do no falsehood by stating that he was exempted from
IBP-CBD? complying with the MCLE requirements when what he really paid
for was the non-compliance fee and not any exemption fee.

The investigating commissioner recommended that respondent be

reprimanded with a stern warning that repetition of same or similar
acts or conduct shall be dealt with more severely.
What is the The OBC recommended to impose a 3-year suspension on Atty.
recommendation of Caringal from the practice of law.
OBC?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent violated the lawyer’s oath to do no
falsehood.
Dispositive portion (final Atty. Caringal violated his sworn oath as a lawyer to “do no
decision) falsehood” as well as the Canon 1, Canon 10, Canon 17 and
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal is SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for three (3) years.
What are the core moral Respect for Authority.
values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues that Honesty, faithfulness, candor, and respect.
are missing?
What are the vices that Deceitfulness, dishonesty, falsehood.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must not engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
that I learned from this deceitful conduct. He must not do any falsehood, nor consent to
case so that no case of the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court
similar can be filed of be misled.
against me in the future?

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and what VENSON R. ANG, complainant
(case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. SALVADOR B. BELARO, JR., respondent.
AC No. 12408 DEC. 11, 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That the late Peregrina owned a parcel of land with a building
circumstances that erected thereon and in 1982 she appointed complainant
lead to file a case) Venson as the administrator of the subject property.
- That the property was inherited by complainant and his siblings
upon the owner’s demise.
- That complainant and his siblings never partitioned the property
or assigned their rights to any of the co-owners.
- That on March 6, 2015, complainant and his siblings were
surprised to learn the title of the subject property was already
cancelled by virtue of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
Among heirs with waiver of rights which they allegedly
executed on March 26, 2014.
 - That the extrajudicial settlement was notarized by respondent
Atty. Belaro on March 26, 2014 before whom complainant
Venson and his siblings purportedly personally appeared and
subscribed therein.
- That they also discovered that two other versions of the same
document that were submitted to the MERALCO and the Office
of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Q.C. that were likewise notarized by
respondent.
- That they also discovered that respondent notarized a Deed of
Absolute Sale which was purportedly executed by and between
Vermont and Rowena Ang as sellers.
- That an acknowledgement receipt was also notarized by
respondent showing that Vermont and Rowena allegedly
received Php5,000,000.00 from the buyers.
Respondent - Respondent denied that he notarized the questioned documents
(defenses) involving the subject property.
- That his alleged signatures found therein were forgeries as
evidenced by his specimen signatures submitted before the
RTC-Quezon City when he applied for a notarial commission.
- He also denied having caused the filing of the questioned
notarized documents before the government agencies
concerned.
- That he did not know the differences and alterations which were
submitted to MERALCO, the LRA, and the Clerk of Court.
- That he does not personally know Dioneda and that she was
never employed as his secretary.
- That the complaint arose from a misapprehension of facts.

What is the The investigating commissioner found that respondent’s

recommendation of the signatures appear to be falsified as they were different from his
IBP-CBD? genuine signatures submitted to the Executive Judge of RTC-
Quezon City when he applied for a notarial commission. But his
notarial seal was used in the documents which resulted to his
failure to properly secure the same since no other person was
allowed to use it other than him.

The IBP-BOG resolved to PARTIALLY GRANT the respondent’s

MOR by imposing the penalty of DISQUALIFICATION FROM
BEING COMMISSIONED AS NOTARY PUBLIC FOR 2 YEARS,
in lieu of the penalty of Suspension from the practice of law for 3
months considering that – the complainant had executed an
Affidavit of Desistance and it is respondent’s first offense.

What is the recommendation n/a

of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not the findings and recommendations of the IBP were
proper.
Dispositive portion (final Respondent is liable for breach of notarial law and for violation of
decision) the Code of Professional Responsibility. The act of notarization is
not an ordinary routine but is imbued with substantive public
 interest. It is the duty of notaries public to observe utmost care in
complying with the formalities intended to protect the integrity of
the notarized document and the act or acts it embodies.

WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of violating the 2004

Rules of Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of 6 months, and his notarial commission is
REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a
notary public for a period of 2 years.
What are the core moral Responsible dominion over material things.
values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues that Sense of Responsibility.
are missing?
What are the vices that Negligence.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must always be mindful of his belongings and must not
that I learned from this directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
case so that no case of
similar can be filed
against me in the future?