ATTY GO violated Canon 16
o His acts acquiring for himself HERNANDEZ’S lots entrusted to him are acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment
o Such conduct on the part of ATTY GO not only degrades himself but also the honor of the legal profession
ATTY GO violated Canon 17
o Records show that HERNANDEZ reposed high degree of trust and confidence in ATTY GO that when she engaged his services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell the same
o ATTY GO, however, abused this trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself
o
ATTY GO is duty bound to render a detailed report to HERNANDEZ on how much he sold the lots and the amounts paid to her creditors but failed to do so In previous cases, the Court disbarred and expelled lawyers from the practice of law in similar circumstances, thus, the penalty recommended by the IBP is too light
JUDGMENT
ATTY GO is disbarred 96 REONTOY v IBADLIT Facts:
Corazon Reontoy lost a decision in a civil case in the RTC with Atty. Liberato Ibadlit as her counsel.
Ibadlit received the notice of the decision but he opted not to file an appeal. He says that he informed Reontoy’s brother, Proculo Tomazar, to inform Reontoy of his opinion that he did not think that an appeal would prosper.
This statement was refuted by the testimony of Proculo saying that he was not given such info.
Reontoy also said that he would never authorized Proculo to represent her to the court or to her lawyer because Proculo was unlettered.
Ibadlit only filed the notice of appeal after the reglementary period for appeal. Obviously, the appeal was instantly dismissed.
Issue:
W/n Ibadlit should be sanctioned.
Held:
SC says yes, Ibadlit is suspended for 1 year.
A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights.
He must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public.
A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."97 DE LAINO v CA De Liano vs. CA – Mendiola
Facts: The prior case involves the cancellation of 2 real estate mortgages in favor of San Miguel executed by Tango. De Liano was a senior executive of SMC.
The prior case was decided against SMC. De Liano appealed the decision to the CA. Their counsel, Atty.
Afable filed an Appellant’s Brief which failed to comply with the Rules of Court. Tango noticed this flaw of the Brief and immediately moved for the dismiss of De Liano’s appeal. The CA decided that the Appellant’s Brief does not contain a Subject Index or a Table of Cases and Authorities; and that these lapses justify the dismissal of the appeal.
De Liano asserts that the CA erred in declaring that the appeal be dismissed on the basis of the lapses in complying with the technical requirements in making of brief.
Issue: W/N the dismissal of the Appeal was proper.
Held: The dismissal of the brief was proper.
All appeals are merely rights that arise from statutes; thus, they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. It is to this end that rules governing pleadings must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. These technical rules like the inclusion of the “statement of facts” or the “subject index” in the brief are meant to enable the appellate court to have a better grasp of the matter entrusted to it for appraisal.
Relevant to the topic: Generally, the negligence of the counsel binds the client. Even if Atty.
Afable may be said to be SMC’s counsel, this does not operate in favor of De Liano. A corporation is an artificial being whose juridical personality is only a fiction created by law and it can only exercise powers and transact its business through its board of directors and its agents. That Atty. Afable was clothed with sufficient authority to bind SMC is undisputable. SMC’s board resolution attests to that. As such, SMC must be held bound by the actuations of its counsel, Atty. Afable.
98 TABAS v MANGIBIN Facts:
A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property in La Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. The deed of mortgage was registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union.
Subsequently, a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and appeared before Mangibin, who was a notary public, and asked the latter to prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it afterwards.
Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again, this time to a rural bank
Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned discharge of REM was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. He even threatened to file a counter suit against her if she files a case against him.
Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment.
Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed the defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the identity of persons appearing before him, and that he had no available means of ascertaining their real identities.
Issue:
W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person appearing before him.
Held:
YES, Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty.
Notarization is invested with public interest. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon an
acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a document.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document.
Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions to ascertain her identity.
Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1. His notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years.
99 SANTUYO v HIDALGO FACTS:
Santuyo purchased a parcel of land covered by a deed of sale which was notarized by Hidalgo and was entered in his notarial register
6 years after the date of notarization, Santuyo had a dispute with Danilo German over the ownership of the land
Germen presented an affidavit of Hidalgo denying the authenticity if his signature on the deed of sale and that it was forged
Santuyo argued that:
o The deed of sale contained all the formalities of a duly notarized document o They had no access to the dry seal of Hidalgo
Hidalgo on the other hand claimed that:
o He was on vacation at the time that the deed was allegedly notarized o An examination of the document will prove that his signature was forged
o He would have remembered Santuyo for he requires that the parties exhibit their community tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the documents before he notarize documents
IBP: the signature was really forged but Hidalgo must be suspended for 2 years as a notary public ISSUE:
W/N Hidalgo must be suspended HELD:
YES!
The responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive. Hidalgo should have been more discreet and cautious I the execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries.
Hidalgo is negligent not only in the supposed notarization but foremost in having allowed the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone and should not have relied on somebody else.
100 ENDAYA v OCA Facts:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr.
Ramirez for the spouses.
At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case.
At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion was denied.
The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.
Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the case were not reall parties-in-interest.
The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision (liar!).
Hence this administrative complaint.
Issue:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct Held:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty. Oca:
o In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his complaint.
o SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.
o In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter.
The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client.
Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated.
Oca’s story shows his appalling indifference to his clients’ cause, deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
Bakit hindi disbarred?
o Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer
o Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim.
o The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload.
101 DE JUAN v BARIA III FACTS:
Emma de Juan dwas dismissed by Triple AAA without notice. She asked for the assistance of Banahaw Broadcasting Company (BBC) to search for a lawyer. The new lawyer, Atty. Oscar Barria III, who worked with BBC offering free legal services to indigents became the counsel of de Juan in the NLRC case against Triple
AAA for illegal dismissal.
When an adverse NLRC decision was rendered against de Juan, she asked Atty Baria as to what to do next. Atty replied "Paano ba yan, iha eh hindi ako marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration?" and the secretary of Atty. Baria told de Juan and the husband "wag na tumawag uli dahil galit..."
De Juan charged Atty Baria with negligence and threats to her person.
Atty. BAria contends that he forewarned his client not to expect too much from him because of his limited legal experience since he was a new lawyer. Also, he alleges that De Juan pocketed the money that Triple AAA has already paid off.
After that, the NLRC decision was reversed, and Atty. Baria accused de Juan that she lied re: her employment, which made him lose his appeal.
May incident pa re: Raffy Tulfo (pero d na kelangan un.. gusto nya kasuhan ng libel kasi may sinabing bad against him)
ISSUE: WoN Atty. Baria can be administratively charged?
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
1. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
2. Rule 18.03 provides that the negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.
3. Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, Atty Baria remains counsel of record and whether or not he has valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the cold.
102 EDQUIBAL v FERRER FACTS:
Edquibal charged Atty Ferrer with professional misconduct and neglect of duty.
Edquibal engaged the services of Ferrer to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed against his sister Delia involving a certain property. In one of the cases, the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Atty Ferrer then advised complainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost involved is P4,000. When complainant Edquibal informed respondent Atty Ferrer that he does not have enough money, Atty ferrer said P2,000 is sufficient.
Edquibal followed up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appelant's brief.
Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. He claimed that he never agreed to handle the appeal.
ISSUE:
W/n Atty Ferrer is guilty of professional misconduct...
HELD:
YES. Records show that respondnet was the counsel of record for Edquibal. The resolution of the CA clearly states that the
"notice sent to counsel for defendants-appelants requiring him to file appelants brief wihtin 45 days from receipt thereof, was received by him...". However, respondent failed to file the appellants' brief despite receipt of such notice. Sec2 rule 44 of the Rules of CivPro provides that the counsel of the parties in the court of origin shall be considered their counsel in the CA.
If it were true that Atty Ferrer did not agree to represent Edquibals, why did he not file with the CA a motion to withdraw as their counsel? The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence. All that is required is ordinary diligence expected of a bonus pater familias.
Suspended for 3 mos.
103 CUIZON v MACALIN Facts:
The legal services of the Atty Rodolfo Macalino was sought by the Susan Cuizon in behalf of her husband Antolin Cuizon who was convicted for Violation of Dangerous Drug Act.
Since they cannot pay, he suggested that he be given possession of their Mitsubishi car.
He then offered to buy, and bought it for only P85T. (Too cheap, even if this happened during the early 90’s).
In spite of everything, he still failed to appear in the case of Antolin Cuizon. The Cuizon’s got another attorney.
He (Macalino) was sanctioned by the lower courts, and was fined by the SC for P1000. which he did not pay.
He was ordered to be arrested by the NBI, who was not able to serve the warrant against him (allegedly, he no longer resided in his place)
The IBP wanted to suspend him for 3 years.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Macalino should be sanctioned.
Held:
He should be DISBARRED and not just suspended.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion
The respondent clearly breached his obligation under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.
104 DE JUAN v BARIA III Facts:
De Juan was an employee of Triple AAA. Based on a performance evaluation she was terminated.
De Juan filed a case for illegal termination against the company. Atty Baria III was her counsel.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of De Juan. When the company appealed to the NLRC, the decision was reversed.
De Juan blamed Baria III for the reversal of the decision. She said that she only came to know of the reversed decision a month after it was promulgated. And when she asked counsel what to do, the latter said that he did not know how to make a Motion for Reconsideration. And when her husband called the office of the lawyer, the secretary told them not to talk with said counsel anymore.
Baria III’s defense was that he forewarned his clients that he was just new in the profession and that they should not expect much from him. He also claimed that did not fail in informing his clients regarding the development of the case. And when the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, he advised De Juan to get a more experienced lawyer. He also cited that he was lambasted on air by a radio announcer--Raffy Tulfo. And that he received death threats after De Juan’s husband called their office and gave a warning to his secretary. In sum, Baria III asserts that he did not commit any breach of his oath and that he has vigorously pursued his client’s cause. He further averred that it was De Juan’s negligence and folly that caused her to lose the case.
Issue:
Issue: