Category: Legal Ethics

Upholding Notarial Duties: Consequences for False Certifications and Negligence

The Supreme Court’s decision in Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome v. Atty. Christopher A. Basilio underscores the critical importance of a notary public’s duties and responsibilities. The Court found Atty. Basilio guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility for notarizing a document with an incomplete or false certificate, failing to properly identify a signatory, and not recording the notarial act in his register. This ruling reinforces the principle that notaries public must exercise utmost care in performing their duties to maintain public trust in the integrity of notarized documents.

When a Notary’s Negligence Undermines Document Integrity

This case began with a complaint filed by Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome against Atty. Christopher A. Basilio for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The core of the complaint revolved around a “Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and Aggregate Landholdings” that Atty. Basilio notarized. The issue arose because one of the affiants, Loreto M. Tañedo, had already passed away before the document was notarized. Atty. Bartolome contended that Atty. Basilio’s actions constituted a breach of his duties as a notary public, thereby necessitating disciplinary action. This set the stage for a detailed investigation into the responsibilities and expected conduct of notaries public in the Philippines.

In his defense, Atty. Basilio admitted to notarizing the affidavit but claimed he had verified the identities of the individuals using their Social Security System (SSS) identification cards and driver’s licenses. He denied any knowledge that one of the persons appearing before him misrepresented himself as Tañedo or that Tañedo was already deceased. However, during the clarificatory hearing, Atty. Basilio conceded that he failed to record the document in his notarial book, submit a copy to the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City (RTC), and have the notarization revoked or recalled. These admissions proved crucial in determining his liability. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) subsequently investigated the matter and submitted a report and recommendation.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Basilio to have manifested gross negligence and complete disregard of the Notarial Rules. The Commissioner highlighted Atty. Basilio’s failure to indicate details of the SSS identification card and driver’s license in the Joint Affidavit, as required by Section 8, in relation to Section 6, Rule II of the Notarial Rules. Moreover, the Commissioner pointed out that Atty. Basilio did not record the notarial act in his notarial register, violating Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, nor did he submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, contrary to Section 2 (h), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. Based on these findings, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Basilio’s notarial commission be revoked, that he be disqualified from obtaining a notarial commission for one year, and that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation. Subsequently, Atty. Basilio’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the act of notarization carries significant public interest, requiring notaries public to exercise the highest degree of care in complying with their duties. The Court referenced Section 5 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which prohibits a notary public from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. The Court also examined the definition of a “Notarial Certificate” under Section 8, Rule II of the Notarial Rules, emphasizing that it must state the facts attested to by the notary public. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the importance of a jurat, which includes an attestation that the person presenting the document is personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity, as defined by the Notarial Rules.

SEC. 6. Jurat. — “Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

The Court found that Atty. Basilio violated Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which prohibits the notarization of a document if the signatory is not personally known to the notary or has not been identified through competent evidence of identity. His failure to record the notarial act in his notarial register also contravened Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. These omissions undermined the integrity of the notarial process. The Supreme Court clarified that while Atty. Basilio’s failure to submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC was also noted, this requirement applies only to instruments acknowledged before the notary public, not to documents with a jurat.

The Court emphasized the duties of notaries public to inform themselves of the facts they certify and to avoid participating in illegal transactions. By failing to ensure that the person signing the document was indeed the person who executed it and personally appeared before him, Atty. Basilio permitted a falsehood, violating not only the Notarial Rules but also Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court cited Agbulos v. Viray to support its decision, stating that when a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his duties, he should face penalties, including revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Basilio violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without proper verification and recording, especially given that one of the affiants was already deceased.
What is a jurat and why is it important?	A jurat is an attestation that the person signing a document appeared before the notary, is known to the notary, or was identified through competent evidence, and took an oath or affirmation. It is important because it verifies the authenticity of the document and the signatory’s identity.
What are the consequences for a notary public who violates the Notarial Rules?	Consequences can include revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a specified period, and suspension from the practice of law. The severity depends on the nature and extent of the violations.
What does “competent evidence of identity” mean under the Notarial Rules?	It refers to the identification of an individual based on at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses.
Why is it important for a notary public to maintain a notarial register?	The notarial register serves as an official record of the notary public’s acts and provides a means to verify the authenticity of notarized documents. Failure to maintain a register can lead to doubt about the document’s nature and validity.
What specific rules did Atty. Basilio violate?	Atty. Basilio violated Section 5 (b), Rule IV (false or incomplete certificate); Section 2 (b), Rule IV (notarizing without proper identification); and Section 2 (a), Rule VI (failure to record in the notarial register) of the Notarial Rules.
What was the IBP’s role in this case?	The IBP investigated the complaint, made findings of fact and law through an Investigating Commissioner, and recommended disciplinary actions, which were then reviewed and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
How does this case affect the public’s trust in notarized documents?	This case reinforces the importance of notarial duties, emphasizing that failure to comply with these duties undermines public confidence in the integrity and reliability of notarized documents.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder to notaries public about the importance of adhering to the Rules on Notarial Practice and upholding the integrity of their office. The ruling reinforces the message that any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate sanctions, ensuring that the public’s trust in notarized documents remains intact.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, AC No. 10783, October 14, 2015

June 13, 2016

Upholding Professional Conduct: Suspension for Practicing Law During Disciplinary Period

The Supreme Court held that a lawyer who continues to practice law while under suspension violates the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Edgar R. Navales was found guilty of defying a previous suspension order by continuing to serve as an Assistant City Prosecutor. This decision reinforces the Court’s authority to regulate the legal profession and ensures that disciplinary actions are strictly observed, maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

Defying the Mandate: When a Prosecutor’s Suspension Becomes a Test of Legal Ethics

The case of Spouses Lamberto V. Eustaquio and Gloria J. Eustaquio vs. Atty. Edgar R. Navales arose from a simple landlord-tenant dispute that escalated into a significant legal ethics issue. The Eustaquios filed a complaint against Atty. Navales for failing to pay rent and vacate their apartment, leading to an initial suspension from the practice of law. However, the crux of the issue before the Supreme Court was not the unpaid rent but rather Navales’ continued practice of law as an Assistant City Prosecutor despite the suspension order.

The factual backdrop reveals a sequence of events beginning with a contract of lease between the Eustaquios and Atty. Navales, which the latter breached by failing to pay monthly rentals. This led to barangay conciliation, an amicable settlement, and eventually, an ejectment case filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. During this period, the complainants also lodged a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging that Atty. Navales had failed to uphold honesty, integrity, and respect for the law.

The MeTC ruled in favor of the Eustaquios in the ejectment case, ordering Atty. Navales to vacate the premises and pay the unpaid rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit. Meanwhile, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Navales administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, which requires lawyers to be honest and avoid dishonest conduct. The IBP recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision in a Resolution dated September 15, 2014.

However, after the suspension order became final, it was discovered that Atty. Navales continued to appear before the MeTC as an Assistant City Prosecutor. The MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 38, issued a certification stating that Atty. Navales had been appearing before it in his capacity as an Assistant City Prosecutor since September 2014. This prompted the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to endorse the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action, leading to the present case.

The Supreme Court emphasized its exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law, stating that a lawyer suspended from practice must cease all functions requiring legal knowledge. This includes holding a government position that necessitates the authority to practice law. The Court referenced Republic Act No. (RA) 10071, also known as the “Prosecution Service Act of 2010,” which outlines the powers and functions of prosecutors:

Section 9. Powers and Functions of the Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor. – The provincial prosecutor or the city prosecutor shall:

(a) Be the law officer of the province of the city officer, as the case may be;

(b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made and filed against the persons accused. In the conduct of such investigations he/she or any of his/her assistants shall receive the statements under oath or take oral evidence of witnesses, and for this purpose may by subpoena summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him/her, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to any trial court; and

(c) Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal ordinances in the courts at the province or city and therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal actions, subject to the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 5 hereof.

The Court noted that the position of Assistant City Prosecutor inherently involves the practice of law. Atty. Navales’ continued performance of these duties was a direct violation of the suspension order. This act constituted willful disobedience to a lawful order of a superior court and wilfully appearing as an attorney without authority, grounds for disbarment or suspension under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred 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 admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully 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. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Considering similar cases, the Court imposed an additional six-month suspension, bringing Atty. Navales’ total suspension to one year. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to disciplinary measures within the legal profession. Lawyers must respect and comply with orders from the Court, especially those related to suspension. The Court’s disciplinary actions are aimed at maintaining the integrity and nobility of the legal profession.

The Supreme Court emphasized that it is inclined to impose a less severe punishment if the end desire of reforming the errant lawyer is possible. This reflects a balanced approach that prioritizes both justice and rehabilitation. By adhering to the rules and regulations set forth for legal professionals, lawyers contribute to the overall trustworthiness of the legal system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Edgar R. Navales should be further suspended from the practice of law for continuing to work as an Assistant City Prosecutor despite an existing suspension order. This tested the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s authority to enforce disciplinary actions against lawyers.
What was the initial reason for Atty. Navales’ suspension?	Atty. Navales was initially suspended for failing to pay rent and to vacate an apartment he leased, which led to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding honesty and integrity. The Supreme Court found that he did not uphold his obligations under the law.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 10071 in this case?	Republic Act No. 10071, the “Prosecution Service Act of 2010,” defines the powers and functions of prosecutors, highlighting that the role requires the individual to be authorized to practice law. Since Atty. Navales was suspended from practicing law, he could not legally fulfill his duties as an Assistant City Prosecutor.
What rule did Atty. Navales violate by continuing to practice law while suspended?	Atty. Navales violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertains to disbarment or suspension of attorneys. The rule specifies that willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court is grounds for suspension or disbarment.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court in this case?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Navales guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and extended his suspension from the practice of law by an additional six months. This brought his total suspension period to one year from the service of the decision.
Why did the Court decide to increase Atty. Navales’ suspension period?	The Court increased the suspension period to underscore the importance of complying with disciplinary measures. The Court aimed to emphasize that lawyers must respect and comply with orders from the Court, especially those related to suspension.
Can a suspended lawyer hold a government position that requires legal knowledge?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that a lawyer suspended from the practice of law must cease all functions requiring legal knowledge. This explicitly includes holding a government position that necessitates the authority to practice law.
What is the role of the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) in this case?	The OBC investigated the matter after it was discovered that Atty. Navales continued to practice law despite his suspension. It recommended that Atty. Navales be further suspended, leading to the Supreme Court’s decision to extend his suspension period.

This case serves as a stern reminder to all members of the Bar about the importance of ethical conduct and compliance with court orders. The legal profession demands the highest standards of integrity, and any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate disciplinary action. This decision reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, and all lawyers, regardless of their position, must adhere to the rules and regulations that govern the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Spouses Lamberto V. Eustaquio and Gloria J. Eustaquio vs. Atty. Edgar R. Navales, A.C. No. 10465, June 08, 2016

June 8, 2016

Upholding Ethical Conduct: Disciplinary Action for Unauthorized Notarization

The Supreme Court in Flora C. Mariano v. Atty. Anselmo Echanez addressed the serious misconduct of a lawyer performing notarial acts without a valid commission. The Court found Atty. Echanez guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to his suspension from the practice of law for two years and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the ethical standards and legal requirements governing the notarial practice, reinforcing the integrity of legal documentation and public trust in the legal profession.

False Representation: When a Lawyer’s Notarial Acts Lead to Disciplinary Action

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Flora C. Mariano against Atty. Anselmo Echanez, alleging that he performed notarial acts without holding a valid notarial commission. Mariano supported her claims with documents notarized by Atty. Echanez and certifications from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) confirming that he was not a commissioned notary public at the time of the questioned acts. Despite being directed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) to respond to the complaint, Atty. Echanez failed to do so, leading to a default judgment against him. The central legal question is whether Atty. Echanez’s actions constituted a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary measures.

The Supreme Court emphasized that notarization is a critical act imbued with public interest. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Therefore, only qualified and authorized individuals should perform such acts. The Court stated:

Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

The Court found it undisputed that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts without a valid notarial commission, a fact substantiated by certifications from the Executive Judges of the relevant RTCs. This misrepresentation was deemed a form of falsehood, violating the lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

The Court drew parallels with previous cases where lawyers faced disciplinary actions for similar infractions. For example, in Nunga v. Viray, a lawyer was suspended for three years for notarizing an instrument without a commission. Similarly, in Zoreta v. Simpliciano, the respondent was suspended and permanently barred from being a notary public for notarizing documents after his commission expired. These cases highlight the judiciary’s consistent stance against unauthorized notarial practices.

Atty. Echanez’s failure to participate in the IBP proceedings further aggravated his situation. His neglect to present a defense, attend the mandatory conference, or submit required documents demonstrated a disregard for the legal process and a violation of his duty to not delay any man for money or malice. The Court referenced Ngayan v. Tugade, stating that a lawyer’s failure to answer a complaint and appear at investigations reflects a “flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court” and a “despiciency for his oath of office.” The failure to respond to IBP directives is a direct violation of the lawyer’s duty to comply with the lawful orders of the IBP, the Court-designated investigator in this case.

The implications of this ruling are significant. It reinforces the critical role of notaries public in ensuring the authenticity and reliability of legal documents. Lawyers who engage in unauthorized notarial acts not only risk disciplinary sanctions but also undermine public trust in the legal profession. The Court’s decision sends a clear message that ethical violations will not be tolerated and that adherence to the rules governing notarial practice is paramount.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stark reminder to all lawyers about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the notarial process. By imposing a two-year suspension and permanently barring Atty. Echanez from being commissioned as a notary public, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the standards of the legal profession and protecting the public from unscrupulous practices. This decision highlights the need for lawyers to exercise due diligence in ensuring they are properly authorized before performing notarial acts.

This case also underscores the importance of cooperation with disciplinary proceedings. Atty. Echanez’s failure to respond to the complaint and participate in the IBP investigation was viewed as an aggravating factor. Lawyers have a professional obligation to address allegations of misconduct and to cooperate with any inquiries or investigations. Failure to do so can lead to more severe disciplinary sanctions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Echanez violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by performing notarial acts without a valid notarial commission.
What evidence did the complainant present?	Flora C. Mariano presented notarized documents signed by Atty. Echanez and certifications from the Regional Trial Court confirming he lacked a notarial commission.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Echanez be suspended from the practice of law for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public.
How did Atty. Echanez respond to the complaint?	Atty. Echanez failed to submit an answer to the complaint or participate in the mandatory conference, leading to a default judgment against him.
What does the Code of Professional Responsibility say about dishonest conduct?	Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
What previous cases were cited in the decision?	The Court cited Nunga v. Viray, Zoreta v. Simpliciano, and Laquindanum v. Quintana, all involving disciplinary actions against lawyers for unauthorized notarial acts.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation, suspending Atty. Echanez from the practice of law for two years and permanently barring him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Why is notarization considered important?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mariano v. Echanez serves as a critical reminder to lawyers about the importance of upholding ethical standards and complying with the legal requirements governing notarial practice. The ruling underscores the severe consequences of engaging in unauthorized notarial acts and highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Flora C. Mariano v. Atty. Anselmo Echanez, A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016

May 31, 2016

Lawyer’s Oath vs. Public Trust: When Private Practice Creates Conflict of Interest

This Supreme Court decision clarifies that a lawyer employed in a government institution cannot engage in private practice if it creates a conflict of interest with their public duties. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, working at the National Center for Mental Health, was found to have violated this principle by representing a client in a case against the Ombudsman, a government body. The Court suspended Atty. Alvarez from the practice of law for one year, emphasizing that public service demands undivided loyalty and prohibits actions that undermine public trust. This ruling reinforces the ethical responsibilities of government lawyers and ensures the integrity of public service.

Influence Peddling and Unauthorized Practice: The Case of Atty. Alvarez

The case revolves around Teresita P. Fajardo, a municipal treasurer facing criminal and administrative charges before the Office of the Ombudsman. She hired Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, a lawyer working at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), to represent her. Teresita alleged that Atty. Alvarez solicited a large sum of money, promising to use his connections within the Ombudsman to influence the outcome of her case. Atty. Alvarez, on the other hand, claimed that he was authorized to engage in private practice and that the fees charged were reasonable for the services rendered.

The central legal question is twofold: First, whether Atty. Alvarez, as a government employee, was authorized to engage in private practice given the potential conflict of interest. Second, whether his actions constituted unethical behavior, specifically influence peddling, and a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision highlights the delicate balance between a lawyer’s right to practice their profession and their duty to uphold public trust and avoid conflicts of interest when serving in government.

The Supreme Court delved into the specific facts of the case, considering the conflicting accounts of Teresita and Atty. Alvarez. The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a one-year suspension and the return of P700,000.00 to Teresita. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s assessment, emphasizing the unauthorized practice of law and the egregious act of influence peddling.

Atty. Alvarez argued that he had the authority to engage in private practice, presenting a letter from the NCMH Chief. However, the Court emphasized that this authority was conditional, requiring that his private practice not conflict with the interests of the NCMH or the Philippine government. The Court cited Cayetano v. Monsod, defining the practice of law broadly to include any activity, in or out of court, requiring the application of legal knowledge and skill. Preparing pleadings and giving legal advice clearly fall under this definition.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
“x x x for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.”

The Court underscored that even with authorization, government employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice if it conflicts with their official functions, referencing Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Memorandum Circular No. 17. By representing Teresita in a case against the Ombudsman, Atty. Alvarez placed himself in a clear conflict of interest. The Ombudsman, as an agency of the government, is responsible for prosecuting erring public officials.

The Supreme Court cited Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local Government, highlighting that complaints against public officers are necessarily impressed with public interest, and representing interests adverse to the government constitutes a violation of ethical standards. The Court held that Atty. Alvarez’s actions were a direct contradiction of his duty to serve the government and uphold public trust. This principle is enshrined in the Constitution, which states that “[p]ublic office is a public trust.”

Beyond the unauthorized practice of law, the Court found Atty. Alvarez guilty of influence peddling. Teresita’s text messages revealed that Atty. Alvarez communicated with individuals connected to the Ombudsman, implying that he could influence the outcome of her case. While Atty. Alvarez denied these allegations, the Court found the evidence sufficient to establish his guilt. This behavior violates the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates integrity and prohibits any conduct that tends to influence a court or give the appearance of influence.

Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 7 requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and Canon 13 mandates reliance on the merits of the case, refraining from any impropriety that tends to influence the court.

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system[.]

The Supreme Court quoted Jimenez v. Verano, Jr., stressing that lawyers must avoid any act that tends to influence the outcome of a case, lest the public’s faith in the judicial process be diluted. The Court also referenced Bueno v. Rañeses, where a lawyer was disbarred for soliciting bribe money from a client, highlighting the gravity of such ethical violations. In this case, the influence peddling, coupled with the unauthorized practice of law, warranted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez guilty of violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for one (1) year and ORDERED him to return the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest to Teresita P. Fajardo, representing the amount intended for influence peddling.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issues were whether a government lawyer’s private practice created a conflict of interest and whether the lawyer engaged in influence peddling, violating ethical standards.
Can government lawyers engage in private practice?	Yes, but only if authorized by their department head and provided that such practice does not conflict with their official functions or the interests of the government.
What is considered a conflict of interest for a government lawyer?	A conflict of interest arises when the lawyer’s private practice involves representing clients against the government or its agencies, undermining their duty of loyalty and public trust.
What is influence peddling in the context of legal ethics?	Influence peddling involves implying or stating that one can influence the outcome of a case through personal connections or relationships, rather than on the merits of the case.
What are the ethical duties of a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Lawyers must uphold the integrity of the legal profession, avoid unlawful or dishonest conduct, and refrain from any impropriety that tends to influence a court or give the appearance of influence.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Alvarez in this case?	Atty. Alvarez was suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to return P500,000.00 to the complainant, representing the amount solicited for influence peddling.
What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath in this case?	The Lawyer’s Oath requires lawyers to conduct themselves with fidelity to the courts and clients, and to avoid any falsehood or unlawful suit, all of which Atty. Alvarez was found to have violated.
How does this case affect the public’s perception of the legal profession?	This case reinforces the importance of ethical conduct among lawyers and the need to maintain public trust in the legal system by avoiding conflicts of interest and influence peddling.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities that accompany the privilege of practicing law, particularly for those serving in government. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of upholding public trust and avoiding any conduct that could compromise the integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers must always prioritize their duty to the administration of justice over personal gain or influence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: TERESITA P. FAJARDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

Upholding Client Loyalty: The Prohibition Against Representing Conflicting Interests in Legal Practice

In Arthur S. Tulio v. Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s representation of a client against a former client on the same subject matter constitutes a conflict of interest and a breach of the lawyer’s duty of fidelity. The Court emphasized that attorneys must avoid even the appearance of treachery and double-dealing to maintain the trust essential for the administration of justice. This ruling reinforces the principle that a lawyer’s duty to protect a client’s interests continues even after the termination of their professional relationship, ensuring that confidential information is never used against the client.

From Advocate to Adversary: When Prior Representation Creates Conflict

The case revolves around Arthur S. Tulio’s complaint against Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin, alleging gross dishonesty and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Tulio had previously engaged Atty. Buhangin for legal advice and representation concerning a property dispute, including the preparation and notarization of a Deed of Waiver of Rights in Tulio’s favor. Subsequently, Atty. Buhangin represented Tulio’s siblings in a case against him, seeking to rescind the very deed he had previously prepared. The central legal question is whether Atty. Buhangin’s subsequent representation of Tulio’s siblings against him constituted a conflict of interest, thereby violating his ethical obligations as a lawyer.

The Supreme Court grounded its decision in the established principles of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 15.03, Canon 15, which explicitly prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests. This rule is designed to ensure that lawyers maintain candor, fairness, and loyalty in all their dealings with clients. The Court emphasized that this prohibition extends to representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client, regardless of whether they are parties in the same action or unrelated cases. This stance is underpinned by the necessity to keep inviolate the client’s confidence and to avoid any appearance of treachery.

The concept of conflict of interest was further elucidated by the Court, referencing Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat. According to this case, a conflict arises when a lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim on behalf of one client conflicts with the duty to oppose it for another client. The prohibition extends beyond cases involving confidential communications, encompassing situations where the new representation could injuriously affect the former client or require the attorney to use knowledge acquired through their previous connection against them. The ultimate test lies in whether the acceptance of a new relation prevents the attorney from fully discharging their duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invites suspicion of unfaithfulness.

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court found that an attorney-client relationship existed between Tulio and Atty. Buhangin, discrediting the latter’s claim that he represented the heirs of Angeline Tulio collectively. The Court pointed to Atty. Buhangin’s admission in his Motion to Withdraw, citing a conflict of interest, as well as demand letters he prepared specifically as counsel for Tulio. Moreover, Atty. Buhangin failed to demonstrate convincingly that he was representing the heirs of Angeline Tulio rather than solely Tulio. The Court underscored that the subject property in both Civil Case No. 4866-R and Civil Case No. 6185-R was the same, and that Atty. Buhangin’s actions in defending Tulio’s interests initially were directly contradictory to his subsequent actions in filing a case against him.

The Court also addressed the issue of Atty. Buhangin’s withdrawal from the case, stating that it came too late to mitigate his disloyalty and infidelity to Tulio. The mere filing of the complaint against Tulio constituted a violation of the rule of conflict of interest, regardless of whether Atty. Buhangin acted in good faith or without intending to represent conflicting interests. The principle is that a lawyer’s duty to protect the client is perpetual and survives the termination of the litigation or any change in the relationship between them.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed Atty. Buhangin’s conduct during the IBP proceedings. His failure to attend mandatory conferences and submit his position paper, despite due notice, was deemed a defiance of lawful orders and a violation of his oath of office. Such conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to avoid delaying any man for money or malice. As such, Atty. Buhangin’s conduct during the proceedings before the IBP was a serious matter. The Supreme Court cited Ngayan v. Atty. Tugade stating that failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Considering Atty. Buhangin’s violation of the rule on conflict of interest and his disregard for the IBP’s orders, the Court modified the recommended penalty. While the IBP-CBD suggested a two-month suspension, the Supreme Court increased it to six months. The Court reasoned that Atty. Buhangin’s actions warranted a more severe penalty due to the undue delay caused in the resolution of the case. The Court emphasized that Atty. Buhangin, as an officer of the Court, was expected to comply with all lawful directives promptly and completely.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Buhangin’s representation of Tulio’s siblings against him, after previously representing Tulio in a related matter, constituted a conflict of interest in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What is the rule on conflict of interest for lawyers?	Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests, ensuring candor, fairness, and loyalty to clients, even after the attorney-client relationship has ended.
What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court based its decision on the principles of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and the duty of a lawyer to maintain client confidentiality.
Did Atty. Buhangin admit to a conflict of interest?	Yes, Atty. Buhangin admitted to a conflict of interest in his Motion to Withdraw as counsel in the case against Tulio, which the Court considered as evidence against him.
Why was Atty. Buhangin’s penalty increased from the IBP’s recommendation?	The penalty was increased due to Atty. Buhangin’s disregard for the IBP’s orders, which caused undue delay in the resolution of the case, in addition to his violation of the rule on conflict of interest.
What is the significance of maintaining client confidentiality?	Maintaining client confidentiality is crucial for fostering trust between lawyers and clients, encouraging full disclosure of information necessary for effective legal representation.
What should a lawyer do if they realize they have a conflict of interest?	A lawyer should immediately disclose the conflict to all parties involved and withdraw from representing the client if the conflict cannot be resolved or if continued representation would violate ethical obligations.
Can a lawyer represent opposing parties with their consent?	A lawyer may represent opposing parties with the written consent of all concerned, given after a full disclosure of the facts, but such representation is permissible only when the lawyer can adequately represent the interests of each client.

The Tulio v. Buhangin case serves as a potent reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers to uphold client loyalty and avoid conflicts of interest. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession by ensuring that lawyers do not exploit prior client relationships for personal gain. It also reinforces the duty of lawyers to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in administrative proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ARTHUR S. TULIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

Upholding Judicial Integrity: Attorney Accountability for Defamatory Imputations

In PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation v. Atty. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Labastilla, the Supreme Court held lawyers accountable for actions that undermine the integrity of the judiciary. The Court found both attorneys guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for insinuating that the Sandiganbayan received a bribe. This case underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and their duty to uphold the honor of the courts.

When Duty Falters: Attorneys, Allegations, and the Court’s Honor

This case arose from a complaint filed by PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation against Attys. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Sikini C. Labastilla. The core issue stemmed from an entry in PHILCOMSAT’s checkbook stub that read “Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case – P2,000,000.” This entry surfaced during a Senate investigation into anomalies within the PHILCOMSAT group of companies. The Sandiganbayan, upon learning of this entry, initiated indirect contempt proceedings against the attorneys, among others. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether these attorneys should be held administratively liable for conduct that allegedly undermined the judiciary’s integrity.

The Sandiganbayan had previously found both attorneys guilty of indirect contempt, imposing fines and imprisonment. The court reasoned that the checkbook entry implied a bribe, thereby degrading the Sandiganbayan’s honor. Atty. Lokin, Jr. was identified as the one who caused the creation of the entry, while Atty. Labastilla was implicated through circumstantial evidence, including his role as counsel for the TRO application and his receipt of the check proceeds. Following the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, PHILCOMSAT filed the administrative complaint that reached the Supreme Court.

Atty. Lokin, Jr. defended himself by arguing that the Sandiganbayan’s findings were erroneous and that an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. Atty. Labastilla echoed the prematurity argument due to the pending appeal and denied any involvement in the checkbook entry. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Lokin, Jr. administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension. However, Atty. Labastilla was absolved. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but increased Atty. Lokin, Jr.’s suspension to three years.

The Supreme Court disagreed in part with the IBP’s findings. While it concurred with the liability of Atty. Lokin, Jr., it also found Atty. Labastilla culpable. The Court emphasized that administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from criminal cases, and a finding of guilt in one does not necessarily dictate the outcome in the other. The Court cited Spouses Saunders v. Pagano-Calde, stating:

[A]dministrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that Atty. Labastilla’s appeal of the Sandiganbayan ruling had already been denied with finality. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s findings regarding the attorneys’ contumacious acts were conclusive. The Court agreed that the checkbook entry contained a contumacious imputation against the Sandiganbayan and that Atty. Lokin, Jr. was responsible for its creation. Desideria D. Casas, PHILCOMSAT’s bookkeeper, testified that Atty. Lokin, Jr. requested the check’s issuance and instructed her to write the entry.

This approach contrasts with the IBP’s assessment, the Court found sufficient evidence to implicate Atty. Labastilla. The Court noted that he was the external counsel who applied for the TRO, he admitted to receiving the check proceeds, and the TRO’s issuance coincided with the check’s date. Moreover, Atty. Labastilla failed to properly account for the P2,000,000.00 he claimed as legal fees. The Court referenced General Milling Corporation v. Casio, reminding that “[a] party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence.”

As lawyers and officers of the court, respondents have a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. The Court referred to Canon 11 of the CPR, which states that “[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.” By creating the checkbook entry, the Court reasoned, the respondents failed in this duty. The Court also invoked Canon 7 of the CPR, which commands lawyers to “at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” The Court said: “It is every lawyer’s duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.”

Considering these violations, the Court imposed sanctions. Citing Baculi v. Battung, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Lokin, Jr., as the one directly responsible for the entry, was suspended for three years. Atty. Labastilla, for his complicity, was suspended for one year. The Court held them accountable for their actions, underscoring the paramount importance of preserving the judiciary’s integrity.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Attys. Lokin, Jr. and Labastilla should be held administratively liable for creating a checkbook entry that insinuated a bribe to the Sandiganbayan. This implicated Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, related to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and showing respect to the courts.
What did the checkbook entry say?	The checkbook entry stated: “Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case – P2,000,000.” This implied that a payment was made to the Sandiganbayan in exchange for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
What was the Sandiganbayan’s role in this case?	The Sandiganbayan initiated indirect contempt proceedings against the attorneys after learning about the checkbook entry. The court found them guilty of contempt for undermining its integrity.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The IBP initially recommended a one-year suspension for Atty. Lokin, Jr. and absolved Atty. Labastilla. However, the IBP Board of Governors later increased Atty. Lokin, Jr.’s suspension to three years.
How did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court found both attorneys guilty of violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It suspended Atty. Lokin, Jr. for three years and Atty. Labastilla for one year.
Why was Atty. Labastilla also found liable?	Despite the IBP’s initial absolution, the Supreme Court found Atty. Labastilla complicit based on his role as counsel for the TRO application, his receipt of the check proceeds, and the timing of the TRO’s issuance. These factors suggested his involvement in the creation of the contumacious checkbook entry.
What are Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 7 requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Canon 11 mandates lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and their duty to protect the judiciary’s integrity. It underscores that lawyers will be held accountable for actions that undermine the public’s confidence in the courts.

This case serves as a reminder of the ethical responsibilities that accompany the legal profession. Lawyers must act with integrity and respect for the courts to maintain public trust in the justice system. Their actions must be beyond reproach, as even the appearance of impropriety can have severe consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation v. Atty. Lokin, Jr., A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016

April 19, 2016

Upholding Lawyer’s Duties: Obedience to Court Orders and Client Communication

The Supreme Court in Tiburdo v. Puno underscored the critical responsibilities of lawyers to adhere to court orders and maintain open communication with their clients. The ruling firmly establishes that failing to comply with court directives and neglecting to inform clients of significant case developments constitutes gross misconduct, warranting disciplinary action. This decision serves as a stern reminder to legal practitioners of their ethical obligations and the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession. The case reinforces the principle that lawyers are officers of the court and must prioritize obedience to legal orders and diligent client communication to ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice.

When Silence Isn’t Golden: Attorney’s Neglect Leads to Disciplinary Action

This case revolves around the actions of Atty. Benigno M. Puno, who represented Gerd Robert Marquard in a civil case. The heart of the matter lies in Atty. Puno’s repeated failure to submit a required Affidavit of Publication to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), despite multiple orders. This inaction eventually led to the dismissal of the civil case. Further compounding the issue, Atty. Puno did not inform his client, Marquard, or Marquard’s attorney-in-fact, Rudenia L. Tiburdo, of the case’s dismissal, leading to a complaint for disbarment against him.

The central legal question is whether Atty. Puno’s actions constituted gross misconduct and a violation of his duties as a lawyer, specifically his obligations to obey court orders and keep his client informed. The complainant, Tiburdo, argued that Atty. Puno’s deliberate failure to submit the affidavit and his subsequent silence regarding the dismissal of the case caused significant prejudice to Marquard. She asserted that these actions warranted disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint and found Atty. Puno guilty of gross misconduct.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed the IBP’s finding of guilt but modified the penalty. The Court emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to be at the forefront of complying with court directives. The Lawyer’s Oath explicitly mandates obedience to the legal orders of duly constituted authorities. Atty. Puno’s repeated failure to produce the Affidavit of Publication was a direct violation of this oath and his duty to the courts. The Court cited jurisprudence emphasizing that a lawyer’s failure to file required pleadings constitutes gross negligence and subjects them to disciplinary action. While Atty. Puno argued that he had been discharged as counsel, the court noted that he had not formally withdrawn his appearance, leaving him as the counsel of record and responsible for informing his client of significant developments.

“Lawyers, as officers of the court, are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives.”

The Court also addressed the issue of Tiburdo’s standing to file the disbarment complaint. It reiterated that the right to institute disbarment proceedings is not limited to clients and does not require the complainant to have suffered personal injury. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest aimed at preserving the integrity of the courts. The Court quoted Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos to emphasize that disciplinary proceedings are not civil actions for redressing private grievances but are undertaken solely for public welfare.

“A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare.”

Regarding Atty. Puno’s failure to inform his client, the Court cited Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond to requests for information within a reasonable time. Atty. Puno received the RTC’s order dismissing the Civil Case but did not inform Marquard or Tiburdo. Even if Atty. Puno considered himself discharged, the Court stated he should have informed Marquard of the dismissal so the client could take appropriate action.

The Court addressed the issue of Atty. Puno’s claim that he was no longer counsel when the RTC issued its orders. The Court explained that until a counsel’s withdrawal is approved by the court, the attorney-client relationship remains. Therefore, any notice sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client. As Atty. Puno failed to formally withdraw, he remained responsible for informing his client of the dismissal.

Obligation	Atty. Puno’s Action	Consequence
Obey court orders	Failed to submit Affidavit of Publication despite repeated orders	Violation of Lawyer’s Oath and duty to the court
Inform client of case status	Did not inform client of case dismissal	Violation of Code of Professional Responsibility
Formally withdraw as counsel	Did not formally withdraw despite claiming discharge	Continued responsibility to client and court

Considering the gravity of Atty. Puno’s misconduct, the Court determined the appropriate penalty. While the IBP initially recommended a three-month suspension, the Court noted that Atty. Puno had previously been suspended for misrepresentation. Given his repeated violations, the Court deemed a longer suspension period necessary. The Court ultimately suspended Atty. Puno from the practice of law for one year. This decision emphasizes the importance of obedience to court orders and diligent client communication in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Puno’s failure to obey court orders and inform his client of the dismissal of their case constituted gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action. The Supreme Court addressed the attorney’s responsibility to the court and to his client.
Why was Atty. Puno disciplined?	Atty. Puno was disciplined for failing to submit a required affidavit to the court, despite repeated orders, and for not informing his client about the dismissal of their case. These actions violated his duties as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Does the complainant in a disbarment case have to be the lawyer’s client?	No, the complainant in a disbarment case does not have to be the lawyer’s client. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest, and anyone can file a complaint if they have evidence of misconduct.
What is a lawyer’s duty to the court?	A lawyer has a duty to obey the legal orders of the court. They must also act with honesty and integrity and not mislead the court in any way.
What is a lawyer’s duty to their client?	A lawyer has a duty to keep their client informed of the status of their case and to respond to their requests for information. This includes notifying the client of any adverse decisions.
What happens if a lawyer fails to withdraw their appearance properly?	If a lawyer fails to withdraw their appearance properly, they remain the counsel of record and are still responsible for representing their client’s interests and informing them of important case developments. The court will continue to recognize them as the official representative.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Puno?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Puno from the practice of law for one year. This penalty was more severe due to his prior disciplinary record.
What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath?	The Lawyer’s Oath is a solemn promise made by every lawyer upon admission to the bar, obligating them to uphold the law, obey legal orders, and conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. It serves as a foundation for ethical conduct in the legal profession.

The Tiburdo v. Puno case serves as a potent reminder of the ethical responsibilities that bind every member of the legal profession. It emphasizes that adherence to court orders, coupled with transparent and timely communication with clients, are not mere suggestions but fundamental pillars of a lawyer’s duty. This case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that those who fail to meet these ethical standards are held accountable.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RUDENIA L. TIBURDO v. ATTY. BENIGNO M. PUNO, A.C. No. 10677, April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

Upholding Attorney Accountability: Neglect of Duty and Client Trust

In Rene B. Hermano v. Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., the Supreme Court held Atty. Prado accountable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) due to his negligence and failure to fulfill his duties to his client. The Court found that Atty. Prado failed to file required pleadings, did not keep his client informed, and did not return unearned legal fees. This decision reinforces the high standards of competence, diligence, and integrity expected of lawyers, ensuring that they are held responsible for upholding client trust and diligently pursuing their client’s legal interests. The ruling serves as a reminder to attorneys of their ethical obligations and the potential consequences of failing to meet them.

When Silence Speaks Volumes: Attorney Neglect and the Erosion of Client Confidence

This case began with Rene B. Hermano engaging Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr. to defend him in two homicide cases stemming from an incident during Hermano’s duty as a police officer. Hermano faced serious charges, and the stakes were incredibly high. The core legal question revolved around whether Atty. Prado had upheld his professional responsibilities to Hermano, particularly regarding diligence, communication, and proper handling of client funds. The facts reveal a troubling pattern of neglect and misrepresentation.

The timeline of events is critical. Hermano paid Atty. Prado P10,000 to prepare and file a memorandum with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Despite receiving the payment, Atty. Prado failed to file the memorandum, a crucial document that could have supported Hermano’s defense. The RTC convicted Hermano. The lawyer’s inaction directly prejudiced his client’s case. The situation worsened when Atty. Prado requested another P15,000 to prepare the appellant’s brief for the Court of Appeals (CA). Again, Hermano complied, trusting his lawyer to act in his best interest.

As the deadline for filing the appellant’s brief approached, Hermano struggled to reach Atty. Prado. He eventually discovered that Atty. Prado had not filed the brief. Hermano desperately sought help from another lawyer, Atty. Cornelio Panes, who managed to file the brief just in time. The gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. Had Atty. Panes not stepped in, Hermano’s appeal could have been dismissed, potentially leading to years of imprisonment. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) even filed a motion to dismiss Hermano’s appeal, further complicating matters. It was only through Atty. Panes’ intervention that the appeal was kept alive and ultimately successful, leading to Hermano’s acquittal.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on specific violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Canon 17 of the CPR states,

“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

Atty. Prado failed to demonstrate this fidelity. Canon 18 further mandates that

“A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.”

This includes adequate preparation, avoiding neglect, and keeping the client informed, as detailed in Rules 18.02, 18.03, and 18.04. Atty. Prado violated all these provisions.

The Court emphasized the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship. In Belleza v. Atty. Macasa, the Court noted:

“A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client with competence and diligence… He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following representations… that he will take all steps necessary to adequately safeguard his client’s interest.”

Atty. Prado’s actions fell far short of these standards.

Atty. Prado’s failure to file the memorandum with the RTC was a critical error. This document could have significantly influenced the outcome of the trial. By neglecting this duty, Atty. Prado deprived Hermano of a valuable opportunity to present his defense effectively. Moreover, his subsequent failure to file the appellant’s brief with the CA placed Hermano’s freedom at risk. The Court also addressed the financial aspect of the case, referencing Canon 16 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to hold client funds in trust and account for them properly. Atty. Prado’s failure to return the unearned fees violated this canon, demonstrating a lack of integrity and propriety.

The Supreme Court cited several precedents to justify the imposed sanctions. In Talento, et al. v. Atty. Paneda, a lawyer was suspended for one year for similar misconduct. Other cases, such as Vda. de Enriquez v. Atty. San Jose and Spouses Rabanal v. Atty. Tugade, also resulted in suspensions for varying durations. These cases highlight a consistent pattern of disciplinary action against lawyers who neglect their duties and betray client trust. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty to six months suspension and ordered the return of P25,000 to Hermano.

The implications of this decision are significant. It reinforces the principle that lawyers must be held accountable for their actions and that client trust is paramount. The ruling serves as a stern warning to attorneys who may be tempted to neglect their duties or mishandle client funds. It also empowers clients by affirming their right to competent and diligent representation. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession and the potential consequences of failing to meet these standards. By holding Atty. Prado accountable, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

Ultimately, this case highlights the critical role lawyers play in upholding justice and protecting the rights of their clients. When lawyers fail to meet their ethical obligations, the consequences can be devastating, as demonstrated by the potential loss of freedom faced by Hermano. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the legal profession demands the highest standards of competence, diligence, and integrity, and that those who fall short will be held accountable.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Prado violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting his duties to his client, failing to file necessary pleadings, and not returning unearned legal fees. The Supreme Court examined whether the attorney’s actions compromised his client’s rights and undermined the trust inherent in the lawyer-client relationship.
What specific violations did Atty. Prado commit?	Atty. Prado violated Canon 17 (fidelity to client’s cause), Canon 18 (competence and diligence), Rule 18.02 (adequate preparation), Rule 18.03 (avoiding neglect), Rule 18.04 (keeping client informed), and Canon 16 (handling client funds in trust) of the CPR. His failure to file the memorandum and appellant’s brief, along with his lack of communication and failure to return fees, constituted these violations.
What was the significance of the unfiled memorandum?	The unfiled memorandum was significant because it could have presented Hermano’s defense to the RTC. Atty. Prado’s failure to submit this document deprived Hermano of a crucial opportunity to argue his case effectively, contributing to his conviction.
How did Atty. Panes assist Hermano?	Atty. Panes stepped in at the last minute to prepare and file the appellant’s brief after Atty. Prado failed to do so. He also filed a comment against the OSG’s motion to dismiss the appeal, ensuring the appeal remained active and ultimately leading to Hermano’s acquittal.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court found Atty. Prado guilty of violating the CPR and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. Additionally, he was ordered to return P25,000 to Hermano for legal services he failed to render, underscoring the importance of accountability and client trust.
Why was Atty. Prado’s conduct considered a breach of trust?	Atty. Prado’s conduct was considered a breach of trust because he accepted fees for legal services he did not perform, failed to keep his client informed, and placed his client’s freedom at risk through negligence. These actions violated the fiduciary duty inherent in the lawyer-client relationship.
What is the role of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The Code of Professional Responsibility sets the ethical standards for lawyers, ensuring they act with competence, diligence, and integrity. It guides lawyers in their professional conduct and protects clients from negligent or unethical behavior.
What is the potential impact of this ruling on other lawyers?	This ruling serves as a reminder to lawyers of their ethical obligations and the potential consequences of failing to meet them. It reinforces the importance of competence, diligence, and integrity in the legal profession, potentially deterring similar misconduct.
How does this case protect clients from attorney misconduct?	This case protects clients by holding attorneys accountable for their actions and providing recourse for those who have been harmed by negligent or unethical conduct. It reinforces the idea that clients have a right to competent and diligent representation.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession and safeguarding the interests of clients. Attorneys are expected to maintain the highest levels of professionalism, competence, and ethical behavior, and failures in these areas will be met with appropriate disciplinary measures.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RENE B. HERMANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. IGMEDIO S. PRADO JR., RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 7447, April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

Upholding Ethical Standards: Suspension for Issuing a Bouncing Check

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nulada v. Paulma underscores the high ethical standards demanded of lawyers in the Philippines. The Court suspended Atty. Orlando S. Paulma from the practice of law for two years after he was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), the law against issuing bouncing checks. This ruling serves as a reminder that lawyers are expected to uphold the law and maintain a high level of moral character, both in their professional and private lives, and failure to do so can result in disciplinary action.

When a Lawyer’s Check Bounces: Examining Moral Turpitude and Professional Responsibility

This case began when Alex Nulada filed a complaint against Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, citing dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Nulada alleged that Paulma issued a check for P650,000 as payment for a debt. However, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite notice and repeated demands, Paulma failed to make good on the check, leading Nulada to file a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22.

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) found Paulma guilty and ordered him to pay a fine, the amount of the check, and other damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC’s decision. Prior to the RTC decision, Nulada filed an administrative complaint before the Supreme Court, leading to the present case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and recommended Paulma’s suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors later modified to a two-year suspension. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether Paulma should be disciplined for a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Supreme Court based its ruling on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the disbarment or suspension of attorneys for various reasons, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court also cited Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandates lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law. Rule 1.01 of the CPR specifically states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The lawyer’s oath requires attorneys to act as guardians of the law and instruments for the orderly administration of justice.

The Court emphasized that a lawyer can be disciplined for any conduct, whether professional or private, that renders them unfit to continue as an officer of the court. The issuance of worthless checks, the Court noted, demonstrates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed in them, showing a lack of honesty and good moral character. It constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, as highlighted in Wong v. Moya II, 590 Phil. 279, 289 (2008), which cited Cuizon v. Macalino, 477 Phil. 569, 575 (2004).

In the case of Enriquez v. De Vera, the Court discussed the purpose and nature of BP 22 violations in the context of administrative cases against lawyers:

[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x] is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.

The Court noted that Paulma’s conviction for violating BP 22 had been definitively established and had become final. Therefore, he violated the lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Supreme Court referenced several similar cases where lawyers were suspended for issuing bouncing checks, including Heenan v. Espejo, A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio, Dizon v. De Taza, and Wong v. Moya II. In these cases, the erring lawyers were suspended for two years, the same penalty the Court deemed appropriate for Paulma.

The Court reiterated that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. Lawyers must observe the law and be mindful of their actions in both public and private capacities. Any transgression of this duty diminishes their reputation and erodes public faith in the legal profession. Paulma’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of him as a member of the bar.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Paulma should be administratively disciplined for being found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude, specifically violating BP 22 (issuing a bouncing check).
What is BP 22?	BP 22, or Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, is a Philippine law that penalizes the making or issuing of a check without sufficient funds or credit. It aims to protect the banking system and legitimate check users.
What is moral turpitude?	Moral turpitude generally refers to conduct that is considered immoral, dishonest, or unethical. It often involves acts that are contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?	The CPR is a set of ethical rules that govern the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines. It outlines the duties and responsibilities of lawyers to the court, their clients, and the public.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Paulma?	Atty. Paulma was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of the Supreme Court’s Resolution.
Why was Atty. Paulma suspended?	He was suspended for violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as for being found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
What does the lawyer’s oath entail?	The lawyer’s oath requires attorneys to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, do no falsehood, and conduct themselves with all good fidelity to the courts and their clients.
Can a lawyer be disciplined for private conduct?	Yes, a lawyer can be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, that renders them unfit to continue as an officer of the court.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and underscores that violating laws, even in their private capacity, can lead to disciplinary action.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nulada v. Paulma serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers in the Philippines. The Court’s consistent stance on maintaining the integrity of the legal profession ensures that lawyers are held accountable for their actions, both professionally and personally. This commitment reinforces the public’s trust in the legal system and the individuals who uphold it.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Alex Nulada, vs. Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Upholding Client Trust: Attorney Reprimanded for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Byron and Maria Luisa Saunders v. Atty. Lyssa Grace S. Pagano-Calde underscores the paramount importance of a lawyer’s fiduciary duty to clients. Atty. Pagano-Calde was found to have fallen short of the required fidelity and diligence in handling client funds, specifically P530,000 entrusted to her in relation to a property sale. The Court reprimanded the attorney, emphasizing that lawyers must act with utmost good faith and protect their client’s interests, even when faced with conflicting contractual obligations. This ruling reinforces the high standards of conduct expected of legal professionals in managing client affairs and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. Clients should feel assured that their lawyers will prioritize their interests and handle their funds responsibly.

Breach of Trust: When an Attorney’s Actions Undermine Client Confidence

Spouses Byron and Maria Luisa Saunders engaged Atty. Lyssa Grace S. Pagano-Calde for a property sale and partition case involving a property in Baguio City. The complainants provided the attorney with P500,000 as partial payment for the property, to be held in trust, and P60,000 for expenses. When the sale fell through, the spouses sought the return of their money. However, the attorney claimed the P500,000 was already given to Adelia Gaerlan, the representative of the seller, due to a forfeiture clause in their agreement. This prompted the Saunders to file a complaint against Atty. Pagano-Calde with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging misappropriation and breach of trust. This case explores the boundaries of an attorney’s responsibility to their client when contractual obligations appear to conflict with the client’s best interests.

The central issue revolves around whether Atty. Pagano-Calde violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to properly manage and account for the funds entrusted to her by her clients. The IBP-CBD initially recommended dismissing the case pending the outcome of a related criminal case for estafa. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, asserting that administrative proceedings against lawyers are distinct from criminal actions and serve to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions are primarily for public welfare, not private redress.

The Supreme Court highlighted the specific Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility that Atty. Pagano-Calde had potentially violated. Canon 16 states that **“A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.”** Canon 17 further provides that **“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”** These canons create a clear and unequivocal duty for lawyers to safeguard their client’s assets and act in their best interests. This duty stems from the fiduciary relationship inherent in the attorney-client dynamic.

The Court scrutinized the attorney’s actions, pointing to inconsistencies and questionable decisions. Despite the Saunders’ persistent requests for the return of their money, Atty. Pagano-Calde did not promptly address their concerns. The timing of producing the Acknowledgment Receipt, purportedly signed by Adelia, only after the estafa case was filed raised suspicion. Furthermore, the Court found it questionable that Atty. Pagano-Calde would deliver the money to Adelia after she knew Adelia’s authority had been revoked. The Court also observed that because the attorney represented the Saunders (the vendees), she should have advised them on Adelia’s lack of authority. The following table highlights the conflicting duties that the attorney had to navigate:

Duty	Description
Duty to Client (Saunders)	To protect their interests in the property sale and ensure their funds were secure.
Contractual Obligation (Deed of Conditional Sale)	The agreement stipulated potential forfeiture of funds if payment wasn’t made by a specific date.

In this situation, the Court emphasized the primacy of the attorney’s duty to her clients. She should have prioritized the Saunders’ interests, even if it meant challenging the validity of the Deed of Conditional Sale or withholding the funds until Adelia’s authority was clarified. Her failure to do so constituted a breach of her fiduciary duty. This case emphasizes that lawyers cannot simply rely on contractual clauses to justify actions that harm their clients’ interests.

The Court addressed the attorney’s argument that she was merely complying with the terms of the Deed of Conditional Sale. The Court reasoned that given the circumstances, including the revocation of Adelia’s power of attorney, the attorney should have questioned the document’s validity. This highlights that lawyers have a duty to critically assess legal documents and transactions to ensure they align with their client’s best interests and protect them from potential harm. Blindly following contractual terms without considering their implications can be a dereliction of duty.

The Supreme Court reiterated the vital role of lawyers in maintaining public trust in the legal system. Lawyers must keep their clients informed about the status of their cases and respond promptly to inquiries. The Code of Professional Responsibility demands honesty, integrity, and competence from all members of the bar. Failure to meet these standards not only harms the client but also undermines the public’s confidence in the legal profession. Because this was Atty. Pagano-Calde’s first offense, the Court opted for a reprimand with a warning. However, the decision serves as a stark reminder to all lawyers about the seriousness of their fiduciary duties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Pagano-Calde violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to properly manage and protect the funds entrusted to her by her clients, the Spouses Saunders. The court needed to determine if she prioritized her clients’ interests above all else, as required by her fiduciary duty.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The Code of Professional Responsibility is a set of ethical rules that governs the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines. It outlines the duties and responsibilities that lawyers owe to their clients, the courts, and the public.
What is a lawyer’s fiduciary duty?	A lawyer’s fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to act in the best interests of their client, with honesty, loyalty, and good faith. This includes properly managing client funds, keeping clients informed, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
Why did the IBP initially recommend dismissing the case?	The IBP-CBD initially recommended dismissal due to the pendency of a criminal case for estafa against the attorney, believing that the administrative case’s outcome should depend on the criminal case’s resolution. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the independence of administrative proceedings.
Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the IBP’s recommendation?	The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from criminal actions. These cases serve to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and protect the public, regardless of the outcome of any related criminal proceedings.
What was the significance of the Acknowledgment Receipt in this case?	The Acknowledgment Receipt, purportedly signed by Adelia, was the attorney’s evidence that she had returned the funds. However, the Court questioned its authenticity and timing, as it was only produced after the estafa case was filed.
What factors did the Court consider when determining the appropriate penalty?	The Court considered that this was the attorney’s first offense and that the appropriate penalty depends on the specific facts of each case. They also balanced the need to discipline the attorney with the potential for rehabilitation and future adherence to ethical standards.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for clients?	This ruling reinforces the expectation that lawyers will prioritize their clients’ interests and handle their funds responsibly. Clients can rely on the Code of Professional Responsibility to hold their lawyers accountable for breaches of trust and ethical misconduct.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a powerful reminder to lawyers of their ethical obligations and the importance of upholding client trust. While Atty. Pagano-Calde received a reprimand, the case sets a precedent for holding legal professionals accountable for actions that fall short of the required standards of fidelity and diligence. The expectation remains that lawyers act in the best interests of their clients and not just by the letter of the law but by the spirit of the law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA SAUNDERS VS. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO-CALDE, A.C. No. 8708, August 12, 2015

April 11, 2016