ASG Law

Tag: Legal Ethics

  • Dishonesty Disbars: Forging Court Decisions and the Erosion of Legal Ethics

    The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. for authoring a fake court decision and for notarizing documents without the affiant’s presence. This ruling underscores the high ethical standards demanded of lawyers, emphasizing that any act of dishonesty, especially the falsification of legal documents, is a severe breach of professional responsibility, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court’s decision protects the integrity of the legal system and safeguards the public from deceptive practices.

    Fabricated Justice: When an Attorney’s Deceit Undermines the Legal System

    In 2011, Leah B. Taday, an OFW in Norway, sought legal assistance to annul her marriage. Her parents hired Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. who assured them that Leah’s absence would not impede the case. After drafting and filing the petition, the respondent delivered a purported decision granting the annulment. Suspicious of its legitimacy, Leah discovered that the decision was fake: the issuing branch and judge did not exist. This led to a formal complaint against Atty. Apoya, revealing a series of ethical violations and culminating in his disbarment. The ensuing legal battle exposed the profound consequences of an attorney’s deceit.

    The heart of this case rests on the ethical duties of lawyers, particularly those outlined in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 mandates that “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.” Atty. Apoya’s actions directly contravened this canon. By fabricating a court decision, he demonstrated a blatant disregard for the legal system and the principles of justice. Such conduct undermines the very foundation of the legal profession, which relies on honesty and integrity. The creation of a false legal document is not a mere error; it’s a deliberate act of deception that strikes at the core of judicial proceedings.

    Rules 1.01 and 1.02 further elaborate on the standards of conduct expected of lawyers. Rule 1.01 states that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The creation and delivery of a fake decision clearly falls under this prohibition. Similarly, Rule 1.02 provides that “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” Atty. Apoya’s actions had the direct effect of undermining public confidence in the legal system, as they suggested that legal outcomes could be manipulated through deceit. The gravity of these violations cannot be overstated, as they erode the public’s trust in the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary.

    The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of proper notarization, highlighting the violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarization is a crucial process that lends authenticity and credibility to legal documents. As the Court noted, “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued with public interest and only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public.” The rules require the personal presence of the affiant before the notary public to ensure the genuineness of the signature and the voluntariness of the act. Atty. Apoya notarized the petition without Leah Taday’s presence, a clear violation of these rules. This act, though seemingly procedural, has significant legal implications, as it affects the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the document.

    The Court cited several precedents to support its decision, reinforcing the principle that lawyers who engage in deceitful conduct should be disbarred. In Krursel v. Atty. Abion, the lawyer drafted a fake order from the Supreme Court to deceive her client. The Court held that “she made a mockery of the judicial system. Her conduct degraded the administration of justice and weakened the people’s faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched the entire legal profession.” Similarly, in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, the penalty of disbarment was imposed on a lawyer who falsified an official receipt from the Court. These cases illustrate a consistent pattern of holding lawyers accountable for acts of dishonesty that undermine the integrity of the legal system.

    The defense raised by Atty. Apoya, that the fake decision was created by the complainant’s parents, was deemed absurd by the Court. The Court reasoned that it was illogical for the parents to create a fake decision when they were actively paying for the attorney’s services to legitimately represent their daughter’s case. This underscores the importance of logical reasoning and evidence-based decision-making in disciplinary proceedings. The Court considered the surrounding circumstances and concluded that the only plausible explanation was that Atty. Apoya himself authored the fake decision to deceive his client.

    The practical implications of this decision are far-reaching. It sends a strong message to the legal profession that dishonesty and deceit will not be tolerated. Lawyers are expected to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct, and those who violate these standards will face severe consequences. The disbarment of Atty. Apoya serves as a deterrent to other lawyers who may be tempted to engage in similar misconduct. It also reinforces the public’s trust in the legal system by demonstrating that the courts are willing to take decisive action against erring members of the bar.

    This case also highlights the importance of diligence and vigilance on the part of clients. Leah Taday’s suspicion and subsequent verification of the decision’s authenticity were crucial in uncovering the attorney’s misconduct. Clients should be encouraged to actively participate in their legal cases and to question anything that seems irregular or suspicious. Furthermore, this case underscores the need for continuous education and training for lawyers on ethical responsibilities and the importance of maintaining integrity in their practice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by authoring a fake court decision and notarizing documents without the affiant’s presence. The Supreme Court found him guilty of these violations and disbarred him.
    What is the significance of notarization? Notarization is a crucial process that lends authenticity and credibility to legal documents, and it is imbued with public interest. It requires the personal presence of the signatory before a notary public who verifies their identity and ensures that the document is signed voluntarily.
    What Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Apoya violate? Atty. Apoya violated Canon 1, which mandates that lawyers must uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. He also violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code.
    What precedents did the Court cite in its decision? The Court cited Krursel v. Atty. Abion and Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, both of which involved lawyers who engaged in deceitful conduct and were disbarred as a result. These cases highlight the consistent pattern of holding lawyers accountable.
    What was Atty. Apoya’s defense, and why was it rejected? Atty. Apoya claimed that the fake decision was created by the complainant’s parents, but the Court deemed this absurd. The Court reasoned that it was illogical for the parents to create a fake decision when they were actively paying for legitimate legal services.
    What is the practical implication of this decision for lawyers? The decision serves as a strong deterrent to lawyers, emphasizing that dishonesty and deceit will not be tolerated. It reinforces the need for lawyers to uphold the highest ethical standards and to act with integrity in all their dealings.
    What is the practical implication of this decision for clients? The decision highlights the importance of diligence and vigilance on the part of clients. Clients should actively participate in their legal cases, question anything that seems irregular, and verify the authenticity of legal documents.
    What penalty did Atty. Apoya receive? Atty. Apoya was disbarred from the practice of law, and his name was ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

    In conclusion, the disbarment of Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers and the serious consequences of engaging in dishonest conduct. The decision underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal system and maintaining public trust in the profession. It also highlights the need for clients to be vigilant and proactive in protecting their legal rights.

    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: LEAH B. TADAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018

  • Upholding Attorney Accountability: Neglect of Duty and Ethical Violations in Legal Practice

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Dimayuga v. Rubia underscores the high standards of conduct expected of attorneys in the Philippines. This case illustrates the consequences of neglecting professional duties, especially when it involves disobeying court orders and failing to uphold the law. The Court suspended Atty. Vivian G. Rubia from the practice of law for three years, disqualified her from notarial practice for a similar period, and revoked her notarial commission. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that lawyers must diligently fulfill their responsibilities and respect legal processes; failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary actions.

    When Silence Speaks Volumes: An Attorney’s Disregard for Court Orders and Legal Ethics

    The case of Julieta Dimayuga v. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia began with a complaint filed by Dimayuga against Atty. Rubia for alleged gross negligence, misrepresentation, and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Dimayuga claimed that Atty. Rubia had been engaged to facilitate the transfer of property and purchase a real estate, but failed to do so promptly, raising suspicions of misappropriation and neglect. The heart of the matter, however, shifted from the initial allegations to Atty. Rubia’s subsequent failure to respond to the Court’s orders. The Supreme Court focused heavily on her repeated failure to submit a comment on the charges against her, despite multiple directives and fines. The central legal question became whether an attorney’s persistent refusal to comply with court orders constitutes a grave breach of professional conduct, warranting disciplinary action.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Atty. Rubia’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders constituted a grave breach of professional conduct. The Court noted that her actions demonstrated a blatant disrespect for the judicial system. Despite numerous opportunities and extensions granted over several years, Atty. Rubia failed to provide any substantive response to the allegations against her. This inaction was deemed a willful disobedience of lawful orders, which is, in itself, a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

    Section 27 of Rule 138 explicitly states the grounds for which an attorney may face disciplinary actions:

    A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a 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 Court found that Atty. Rubia’s excuses for her inaction—trauma, stress, and life-threatening situations—were insufficient, especially given that she managed to file pleadings explaining these issues but not the required comment. The Court concluded that her actions were deliberate and manipulative, causing unreasonable delays in the resolution of the case. Citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, the Court reiterated that failure to comply with court orders constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination, further underscoring the severity of Atty. Rubia’s actions.

    Regarding the initial allegations of delay and misappropriation of funds, the Court found that these claims were not sufficiently substantiated. The standard of proof in administrative proceedings requires substantial evidence, which is defined as evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this case, the complainant’s allegations lacked concrete evidence to prove that the funds were indeed given to the respondent on the claimed date and subsequently misappropriated. The Court emphasized that mere allegations, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to establish guilt.

    Despite the lack of evidence supporting the misappropriation claims, the Court found fault with Atty. Rubia for preparing and notarizing a deed of sale for a property that was legally prohibited from being sold, transferred, or conveyed under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. This law imposes a ten-year restriction on the sale or transfer of land awarded under a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), except through hereditary succession or to the government.

    By preparing and notarizing the deed of sale during the prohibited period, Atty. Rubia was deemed to have violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Additionally, Rule 1.02 of the CPR mandates lawyers to not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law. The Court emphasized that lawyers must always conduct themselves in a manner that is scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Furthermore, she violated Rule 15.07, which requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the laws.

    The act of notarizing the illegal document was considered a serious breach of duty. Notarization imbues a document with a presumption of regularity and authenticity, making it more credible and reliable. However, in this case, the notarization lent undeserved credibility to an illegal transaction. The Court cited Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Pascua, which explained that notaries public must guard against illegal or immoral arrangements and refrain from being a party to their consummation. This is further reinforced by Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits notaries from performing any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the act or transaction is unlawful or immoral.

    The Supreme Court weighed the appropriate disciplinary action, considering that this was not Atty. Rubia’s first administrative sanction. The Court acknowledged the principle that disbarment should not be imposed if a less severe punishment would suffice. However, given the gravity of her offenses—willful disobedience of court orders and facilitating an illegal transaction—and her prior disciplinary record, the Court deemed a substantial suspension necessary.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Atty. Rubia guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules on Notarial Practice. She was suspended from the practice of law for three years, disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for three years, and her notarial commission was revoked. The Court issued a stern warning that future infractions would be dealt with more severely, underscoring the importance of upholding ethical standards and complying with legal obligations in the legal profession.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Rubia’s repeated failure to comply with court orders and her notarization of an illegal sale constituted a breach of professional conduct warranting disciplinary action.
    What is the significance of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court? Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court lists the grounds for which an attorney may be disciplined, including willful disobedience of a lawful court order. This provision was central to the Court’s decision to suspend Atty. Rubia.
    What constitutes substantial evidence in administrative cases? Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard is used to determine guilt in administrative proceedings.
    What is the restriction on selling land acquired through a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)? Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 imposes a ten-year restriction on the sale or transfer of land awarded under a CLOA, except through hereditary succession or to the government.
    What ethical rules did Atty. Rubia violate? Atty. Rubia violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and Rule 15.07, which requires lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance with the laws.
    What is the duty of a notary public regarding illegal transactions? A notary public must guard against illegal or immoral arrangements and refrain from being a party to their consummation. Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits notarization if the notary knows or has reason to believe the transaction is unlawful.
    What disciplinary actions can be taken against erring lawyers? The Court can impose various sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from acting as a notary public, and even disbarment, depending on the gravity of the offense.
    What was the final ruling in this case? Atty. Rubia was suspended from the practice of law for three years, disqualified from being a notary public for three years, and her notarial commission was revoked due to her ethical and legal violations.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Dimayuga v. Rubia serves as a critical reminder to all attorneys in the Philippines about the importance of upholding their ethical obligations and respecting the orders of the court. The consequences of failing to do so can be severe, impacting not only their professional careers but also the public’s trust in the legal system. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining high standards of conduct within 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: JULIETA DIMAYUGA VS. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018

  • Upholding Legal Ethics: Attorney’s Suspension for Disobeying Court Orders and Illegal Notarization

    In Dimayuga v. Rubia, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the disciplinary action against Atty. Vivian G. Rubia for gross misconduct, including willful disobedience of court orders and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found Rubia guilty of failing to comply with multiple orders to submit a comment on the complaint against her, and for notarizing a deed of sale for a property that was legally prohibited from being sold under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. The Court suspended Atty. Rubia from the practice of law for three years, revoked her notarial commission, and disqualified her from being commissioned as a notary public for three years, emphasizing the importance of upholding the law and respecting court orders.

    When Silence Speaks Volumes: An Attorney’s Disregard for Legal and Ethical Duties

    This case arose from a complaint filed by Julieta Dimayuga against Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, citing gross negligence, misrepresentation, and violation of the lawyer’s oath. The core of the dispute involved two primary issues: first, alleged delays and potential misappropriation of funds related to the transfer of property inherited by Dimayuga’s family, and second, the preparation and notarization of a deed of sale for a property still under a ten-year prohibition from transfer as mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

    The administrative proceedings initiated against Atty. Rubia took a troubling turn when she repeatedly failed to respond to the Court’s orders. Despite multiple resolutions from the Supreme Court directing her to comment on the allegations, and even after being fined for non-compliance, Atty. Rubia remained silent. Her eventual explanation cited trauma, stress, and life-threatening situations, but the Court deemed these insufficient, especially since she managed to submit pleadings explaining her inaction but not the required comment. This persistent failure to respond ultimately led the Court to act on the complaint without her input, marking a significant point in the evaluation of her conduct.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of Atty. Rubia’s defiance, stating that her actions constituted a deliberate disregard for the lawful orders of the Court. The Court quoted Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, underscoring that failure to comply with court directives amounts to gross misconduct and insubordination. Such behavior, the Court noted, is not only detrimental to her case but also a separate ground for suspension or disbarment, as stipulated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

    Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. – A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. x x x.

    Turning to the substance of the complaint, the Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of delay and misappropriation of funds. The complainant’s claim of providing P150,000 to Atty. Rubia for fees and taxes lacked supporting documentation, leading the Court to refrain from making a ruling based on mere conjecture.

    However, the Court found merit in the allegation concerning the illegal sale of land. The evidence showed that Atty. Rubia prepared and notarized a deed of sale for a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. CARP-03000, which originated from Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00394433. This title contained an explicit restriction that the land could not be sold, transferred, or conveyed within ten years, except through hereditary succession or to the government. The sale occurred within this prohibited period, rendering it illegal under R.A. No. 6657.

    The Court highlighted the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, referencing Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws. Rule 15.07 further mandates lawyers to advise their clients to comply with the law. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that lawyers must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects scrupulous observance of the law and ethics. By facilitating the sale of the property, Atty. Rubia failed to meet these standards.

    Moreover, the Court addressed the implications of Atty. Rubia’s role as a notary public in the illegal transaction. The act of notarization lends legal weight to a document, certifying its authenticity and validity. In this case, however, Atty. Rubia’s notarization of the deed of sale gave a false impression of legality to a transaction that was, in fact, prohibited by law. The Court quoted Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Pascua to underscore the duties of a notary public:

    [W]hile respondent’s duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation. Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in fact proscribes notaries public from performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the herein document of sale, to wit:

    SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. – A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:

    (a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;

    The Court further stressed the significance of notarization, indicating that it is not merely a routine act but one invested with substantial public interest, requiring that only qualified individuals are commissioned to perform it. The Court acknowledged Atty. Rubia’s prior administrative sanctions and reiterated its warning that future infractions would be dealt with more severely. Despite this, the Court also considered that disbarment should not be imposed if a lesser punishment would suffice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Rubia should be disciplined for failing to comply with court orders and for notarizing a deed of sale that violated the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. This involved assessing her ethical and legal responsibilities as an attorney and notary public.
    What was the basis for the suspension of Atty. Rubia? Atty. Rubia was suspended for her willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders to submit a comment and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing an illegal deed of sale. These actions demonstrated a disregard for legal ethics and court authority.
    Why was the notarization of the deed of sale considered a violation? The notarization was a violation because the deed of sale involved a property that was legally prohibited from being sold, transferred, or conveyed under Republic Act No. 6657 within a specific period. Atty. Rubia, as a lawyer, should have been aware of this restriction.
    What is the significance of the Code of Professional Responsibility in this case? The Code of Professional Responsibility sets the ethical standards for lawyers in the Philippines. Atty. Rubia violated Canon 1 and Rule 15.07, which require lawyers to uphold the law and advise clients to comply with it, thus guiding the Court’s decision.
    What is the role of a notary public, and how did Atty. Rubia fail in that role? A notary public is responsible for verifying the identity of signatories and ensuring the voluntariness of their declarations. Atty. Rubia failed in her role by notarizing a document that facilitated an illegal transaction, giving it a false sense of legitimacy.
    What previous disciplinary actions had been taken against Atty. Rubia? Atty. Rubia had previously been sanctioned for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon I and Rule 18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These prior sanctions were considered in determining the appropriate penalty in this case.
    What is the legal basis for suspending or disbarring an attorney in the Philippines? Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the legal basis for suspending or disbarring an attorney. It allows for such actions in cases of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.
    What factors did the Supreme Court consider when determining the penalty? The Court considered Atty. Rubia’s repeated failure to comply with court orders, her violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, her previous disciplinary actions, and the principle that disbarment should not be imposed if a lesser punishment would suffice.

    The Supreme Court’s decision to suspend Atty. Vivian G. Rubia underscores the importance of adherence to legal ethics and respect for court orders within the legal profession. The ruling serves as a reminder to attorneys of their duty to uphold the law, advise clients accordingly, and maintain the integrity of legal processes.

    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: JULIETA DIMAYUGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018

  • Mitigating Circumstances: Reducing Fines for Ethical Violations in the Legal Profession

    In a resolution, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a motion for reconsideration regarding a fine imposed on a disbarred lawyer, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court initially fined Revilla P100,000.00 for committing fraud against a client. However, considering Revilla’s financial constraints due to his prior disbarment, chronic kidney disease, and sincere remorse, the Court reduced the fine to P50,000.00. This decision underscores the Court’s willingness to consider mitigating circumstances in disciplinary cases, balancing the need to uphold ethical standards with considerations of justice and equity.

    When Remorse Meets Reality: Can Personal Hardship Ease Professional Penalties?

    The case revolves around a motion filed by Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., seeking a reduction of the fine imposed upon him for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The original decision found Revilla guilty of fraud against his client, leading to a fine of P100,000.00. Revilla’s motion cited several mitigating factors, including his disbarment in a prior case (A.C. No. 7054), his ongoing battle with chronic kidney disease requiring regular dialysis, the loss of his livelihood due to disbarment, and his candid acknowledgment of his ethical transgressions with a showing of sincere remorse. These factors prompted the Supreme Court to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the original fine.

    The Court’s decision hinges on its discretionary power to consider mitigating circumstances in administrative cases. In Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, the Court has previously acknowledged the relevance of mitigating factors in determining penalties, stating:

    [I]n several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.

    This principle reflects a broader understanding that disciplinary actions should not be solely punitive but also consider the individual circumstances of the respondent. The Court’s discretion is rooted in Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which explicitly allows for the consideration of mitigating circumstances. This provision acknowledges that a strict application of penalties may not always serve the interests of justice, especially when personal hardships and genuine remorse are evident.

    The Court also weighed the impact of Revilla’s disbarment on his ability to earn a livelihood. Quoting previous rulings, the Court noted that “where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only for the laws concern for the workingman; there is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on wage earners.” This consideration highlights the Court’s concern for the practical consequences of disciplinary actions, particularly when they affect the respondent’s ability to support themselves and their families.

    In evaluating Revilla’s motion, the Court balanced the need to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession with the principles of fairness and compassion. On one hand, the Code of Professional Responsibility demands the highest level of integrity and ethical conduct from lawyers. Violations of the Code, such as the fraud committed by Revilla, warrant serious sanctions to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal system. On the other hand, the Court recognized that Revilla’s circumstances—his disbarment, illness, and remorse—presented a compelling case for leniency. The Court determined that reducing the fine would not undermine the goals of disciplinary action but would instead reflect a more nuanced and equitable approach.

    This decision does not set a precedent for excusing unethical behavior. The Court carefully considered the specific facts of Revilla’s case, including his disbarment and health issues, which significantly impacted his financial situation. Without these compelling mitigating factors, the Court likely would have upheld the original fine. This case serves as a reminder that the Court retains the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in disciplinary cases, but such discretion will be exercised cautiously and only when warranted by the unique facts and circumstances of each case.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Supreme Court should reduce the fine imposed on a disbarred lawyer for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, considering his financial constraints, health issues, and remorse.
    What mitigating factors did the Court consider? The Court considered the lawyer’s prior disbarment, chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis, loss of livelihood, and candid acknowledgment of his ethical sins with genuine remorse.
    What was the original penalty imposed on the lawyer? The original penalty was a fine of P100,000.00 for committing fraud against his client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    What was the reduced penalty after the motion for reconsideration? The Court reduced the penalty to a fine of P50,000.00, taking into account the mitigating circumstances presented by the lawyer.
    What legal principle did the Court rely on in reducing the fine? The Court relied on its discretionary power to consider mitigating circumstances in administrative cases, as recognized in Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas and Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
    Does this decision excuse unethical behavior by lawyers? No, the decision does not excuse unethical behavior. It merely demonstrates the Court’s willingness to consider mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty, especially when significant hardships are involved.
    What is the significance of the lawyer’s disbarment in this case? The lawyer’s prior disbarment was a significant factor, as it contributed to his financial constraints and loss of livelihood, which the Court considered as mitigating circumstances.
    What is the effect of showing remorse in disciplinary cases? Showing remorse, along with other mitigating factors, can influence the Court’s decision in determining the appropriate penalty, as it indicates a recognition of wrongdoing and a willingness to atone for the ethical violations.

    This case illustrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to balancing the need for ethical accountability within the legal profession with principles of fairness and compassion. While upholding the standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility is paramount, the Court recognizes that individual circumstances can warrant a more nuanced approach to disciplinary actions. The decision serves as a reminder that justice requires considering both the offense and the offender, ensuring that penalties are proportionate and equitable.

    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: GENE M. DOMINGO VS. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 5473, July 03, 2018

  • Upholding Legal Ethics: Attorney Suspended for Falsehood in Property Sale

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines has affirmed the suspension of an attorney for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The attorney was found to have facilitated a property sale using a deed containing inaccuracies, including the signature of a deceased person. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must uphold the law and be truthful in their professional dealings, even when acting on behalf of clients. The ruling highlights the importance of integrity and honesty in the legal profession, ensuring public trust and confidence in the administration of justice.

    When Family Loyalty Blinds: Can an Attorney Overlook Falsehoods in a Property Transaction?

    This case, Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. v. Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno, A.C. No. 12012, revolves around a complaint filed against Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno (respondent) by her cousin, Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. (complainant). The complainant sought the suspension or disbarment of the respondent for alleged unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct, specifically, the falsification of a public document, and violation of her duty to preserve client confidences. The central issue is whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for facilitating the sale of a property using a deed containing false information.

    The facts reveal that the respondent, acting as attorney-in-fact for her uncle, Geronimo Sr., sold a property co-owned by Geronimo Sr. and his children. The deed of sale, however, contained several inaccuracies: it bore the signature of Geronimo Sr.’s deceased wife, erroneously described Geronimo Sr. as married, and misrepresented the ownership of the property. The complainant argued that the respondent knowingly participated in the falsification of a public document and violated her duty to maintain client confidences by disclosing information about his father’s alleged illegitimate children.

    In her defense, the respondent claimed that she did not prepare the deed of sale and merely acted in good faith, relying on the consent of all the Jimeno children. She also argued that her communications with the complainant’s lawyer were privileged and did not arise from confidential information shared by Geronimo Sr. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found her liable for allowing herself to be a party to a document containing falsehoods and inaccuracies, recommending a reprimand, which was later increased to a six-month suspension by the IBP Board of Governors.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the fundamental duty of lawyers to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy in their dealings with clients and the courts. The Court quoted the Lawyer’s Oath, which explicitly states, “I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.” This oath, the Court noted, extends beyond the courtroom, requiring lawyers to refrain from falsehoods in all their professional actions.

    The Court also cited several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) relevant to the case. These include:

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

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

    CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.

    Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.

    CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

    Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.

    The Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that the respondent’s actions constituted a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits any form of misconduct. The Court also held that the respondent failed to impress upon her client the importance of complying with the law. Instead of advising the parties to settle the estate of the deceased wife, Perla, to properly register the property, she signed the deed despite its patent irregularities.

    The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that she had no hand in the preparation of the documents, stating that “as a lawyer, she is expected to respect and abide by the laws and the legal processes.” The Court emphasized that lawyers are “most sacredly bound to uphold the law” and must “live by the law.” The respondent’s awareness of Perla’s death and the resulting co-ownership of the property further underscored her culpability.

    The defense of good faith and reliance on the assurances of the Jimeno children was also dismissed. The Court stated that “she cannot invoke good faith and good intentions as justifications to excuse her from discharging her obligation to be truthful and honest in her professional actions since her duty and responsibility in that regard are clear and unambiguous.” Allowing lawyers to prioritize their clients’ wishes over truthfulness would undermine the role of lawyers as officers of the court.

    The Court clarified that while lawyers owe fidelity to their clients, this fidelity must be exercised within the bounds of the law. “Respondent’s responsibility to protect and advance the interests of her client does not warrant a course of action not in accordance with the pertinent laws and legal processes.” Therefore, the Court found the respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the CPR.

    However, the Court dismissed the charge of violating lawyer-client privilege due to lack of substantiation. Ultimately, the Court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, citing similar cases where lawyers were penalized for falsehood or knowingly allowing falsehood by their clients. The Court reiterated its call for lawyers to remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath, as “[a]ny resort to falsehood or deception…evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law.”

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an attorney should be held liable for facilitating a property sale using a deed containing false information, specifically, the signature of a deceased person. The case examined the attorney’s duty to uphold the law and be truthful in professional dealings.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of the attorney for six months. The Court found that the attorney violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing herself to be a party to a document containing falsehoods and inaccuracies.
    What is the Lawyer’s Oath? The Lawyer’s Oath is a solemn promise made by every lawyer upon admission to the bar. It includes a commitment to uphold the law, do no falsehood, and conduct oneself with fidelity to the courts and clients.
    What is the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)? The CPR is a set of ethical rules governing the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines. It covers a lawyer’s relationship with the profession, the courts, society, and clients, outlining their duties and responsibilities.
    What specific rules of the CPR were violated in this case? The attorney violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (prohibiting dishonest conduct), Rule 15.07 of Canon 15 (requiring compliance with the law), and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 (requiring fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives). These rules emphasize the importance of honesty and integrity in legal practice.
    Can a lawyer be excused for acting in good faith on behalf of a client? No, a lawyer cannot be excused for acting in good faith if it involves untruthful statements. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to be truthful and honest is clear and unambiguous, superseding the client’s wishes if they conflict with the law.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling reinforces the importance of integrity and honesty in the legal profession. It sends a message that lawyers will be held accountable for their actions, even when acting on behalf of clients, to maintain public trust and confidence in the legal system.
    What was the penalty imposed on the attorney? The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for six months. This penalty serves as a deterrent against similar misconduct and underscores the seriousness of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder to all lawyers of their ethical obligations and the importance of upholding the law in all their professional dealings. It reinforces the principle that integrity and honesty are paramount in the legal profession, and any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.

    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: GERONIMO J. JIMENO, JR. VS. ATTY. FLORDELIZA M. JIMENO, A.C. No. 12012, July 02, 2018

  • Upholding Honesty: Lawyer Suspended for Falsifying Document in Property Sale

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has suspended Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno for six months for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case arose from her involvement in a property sale where she signed a Deed of Absolute Sale containing false information, specifically the signature of a deceased person. This decision underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and reinforces their duty to uphold the law, even when acting on behalf of clients, highlighting that legal professionals must not engage in or condone any form of dishonesty.

    When Family Ties Entangle Legal Ethics: The Case of the Dishonest Deed

    The case of Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. v. Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno began with a complaint filed by Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. against his cousin, Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno. The complaint alleged that Atty. Jimeno had engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct by falsifying a public document. Specifically, she was accused of selling a property belonging to Geronimo Jr.’s deceased parents using a Deed of Absolute Sale that contained false information. The complainant further contended that the respondent violated her duty to preserve client confidences. The central issue was whether Atty. Jimeno should be held administratively liable for these actions.

    The facts revealed that Atty. Jimeno, acting as the attorney-in-fact for Geronimo Sr., sold a property co-owned by him and his ten children. The Deed of Absolute Sale was problematic because it bore the signature of Perla de Jesus Jimeno, who had passed away before the document’s execution. Additionally, the deed incorrectly described Geronimo Sr. as married to Perla at the time of the sale. The complainant argued that these inaccuracies constituted a falsification of a public document and a breach of professional ethics. He also claimed that the attorney revealed confidential information about his father, violating lawyer-client privilege.

    In her defense, Atty. Jimeno claimed that she did not prepare the deed and that all documents were sent to her from Canada by another relative. She argued that she signed the deed in good faith, believing that all parties had consented to the sale. Furthermore, she contended that the information she shared with the complainant’s lawyer was not privileged communication. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found that while the sale appeared to be a unanimous decision of the Jimeno children, Atty. Jimeno had violated her duties as a lawyer by allowing herself to be a party to a document containing falsehoods.

    The IBP initially recommended a reprimand, but upon reconsideration, the penalty was increased to a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The IBP emphasized that Atty. Jimeno’s actions were a blatant transgression of her duties under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). This rule prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP, underscoring the importance of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in the legal profession.

    The Supreme Court’s decision rested on the fundamental principle that lawyers must be honest and trustworthy in all their dealings, both with clients and with the courts. The Court emphasized the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath, which requires lawyers to refrain from doing any falsehood and to conduct themselves with fidelity to the courts and their clients. As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to uphold the law and serve as exemplars of ethical conduct. The Lawyer’s Oath explicitly states: “I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.”

    The Court also cited several provisions of the CPR, including Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19. These rules collectively require lawyers to uphold the law, promote respect for legal processes, observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in dealings with clients, and employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Jimeno had violated these rules by participating in the execution of a deed containing false information, thereby failing to uphold the law and engaging in dishonest conduct.

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

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

    CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.

    Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.

    CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

    Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.

    The Court rejected Atty. Jimeno’s defense that she relied on the assurances of the Jimeno children and acted in good faith. It emphasized that lawyers have a clear and unambiguous obligation to be truthful and honest in their professional actions. The fact that she did not prepare the documents of sale was deemed irrelevant because, as a lawyer, she was expected to respect and abide by the laws and legal processes. The Court stated that lawyers are “most sacredly bound to uphold the law” and “it is imperative that they live by the law.” Lawyers cannot use good faith as a justification to excuse them from discharging their duty to be truthful and honest in their professional actions.

    The decision also addressed the issue of lawyer-client privilege, finding that the charge of violation was not properly substantiated. While the complainant alleged that Atty. Jimeno had disclosed confidential information, the Court found insufficient evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the suspension was based solely on the falsification of the document.

    The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Jimeno’s actions constituted malpractice and gross misconduct in her office as an attorney. The Court cited previous cases where lawyers who committed falsehood or knowingly allowed the commission of falsehood were suspended from the practice of law. In line with these precedents, the Court imposed a six-month suspension on Atty. Jimeno. The Court reiterated its commitment to ensuring that lawyers remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath and preserve their fitness to remain members of the legal profession.

    In justifying the penalty, the Supreme Court said:

    Verily, the act of respondent in affixing her signature on a deed of sale containing falsehood and/or inaccuracies constitutes malpractice and gross misconduct in her office as attorney. Case law provides that in similar instances where lawyers committed falsehood or knowingly allowed the commission of falsehood by their clients, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Jimenez v. Francisco, a lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months for permitting untruthful statements to be embodied in public documents.

    The Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder to all lawyers of their ethical obligations and the importance of maintaining honesty and integrity in their professional conduct. It reinforces the principle that lawyers must uphold the law and refrain from participating in any form of deceit or misrepresentation, even when acting on behalf of clients. The ruling has significant implications for the legal profession, highlighting the need for lawyers to exercise due diligence and ensure the accuracy of documents they sign.

    Ultimately, this case reinforces the bedrock principles of the legal profession. It clarifies that convenience, familial ties, or client pressure will never justify a departure from the truth. The repercussions extend beyond the individual lawyer, impacting public trust in the entire legal system. By enforcing these standards, the Supreme Court seeks to maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the public from unethical conduct.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Jimeno should be held administratively liable for falsifying a public document by signing a Deed of Absolute Sale containing false information. This tested the boundaries of a lawyer’s ethical duty to uphold honesty and integrity.
    What was the false information in the deed? The deed bore the signature of Perla de Jesus Jimeno, who was already deceased, and incorrectly described Geronimo Sr. as married to Perla at the time of the sale. Additionally, the deed erroneously stated Geronimo Sr.’s residence.
    What did Atty. Jimeno argue in her defense? Atty. Jimeno argued that she did not prepare the deed, that the documents were sent from Canada, and that she signed the deed in good faith, believing all parties had consented. She also argued that her communication wasn’t privileged.
    What was the IBP’s initial recommendation? The IBP initially recommended a reprimand for Atty. Jimeno, but upon reconsideration, the penalty was increased to a six-month suspension from the practice of law. This reflected a stronger stance against ethical violations.
    What provisions of the CPR did Atty. Jimeno violate? Atty. Jimeno violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These rules concern honesty, fairness, and adherence to the law.
    Why was Atty. Jimeno’s good faith defense rejected? The Court emphasized that lawyers have a clear obligation to be truthful and honest, regardless of good intentions or reliance on others’ assurances. Ignorance or convenience is never an excuse.
    Was the charge of violating lawyer-client privilege upheld? No, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the claim that Atty. Jimeno had disclosed confidential information, so this charge was not upheld. The suspension was based solely on the falsification of the document.
    What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath in this case? The Lawyer’s Oath requires lawyers to refrain from doing any falsehood, and the Court emphasized that Atty. Jimeno’s actions violated this oath. The oath is a fundamental pledge every lawyer makes.
    What is the penalty for similar violations? In similar cases where lawyers commit falsehood or knowingly allow the commission of falsehood, the Court has imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. This reflects the severity of the offense.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a stern reminder to all members of the Bar about the importance of upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct. Lawyers must remain vigilant in ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of the documents they handle, and they must never compromise their integrity for the sake of convenience or client pressure. The legal profession relies on the public’s trust, and it is the duty of every lawyer to safeguard that trust through unwavering adherence to the law and ethical principles.

    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: GERONIMO J. JIMENO, JR. VS. ATTY. FLORDELIZA M. JIMENO, A.C. No. 12012, July 02, 2018

  • Upholding Notarial Duties: Proper Identification in Legal Documents

    In the case of Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite v. Atty. Raymund P. Guzman, the Supreme Court addressed the critical importance of proper identification in notarial practice. The Court found Atty. Guzman liable for failing to properly verify the identity of a signatory to a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale, relying only on a community tax certificate (CTC) which is not considered a competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This decision underscores the responsibility of notaries public to ensure the authenticity of documents and protect the public trust, with penalties imposed for negligence and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The ruling reinforces the need for strict compliance with notarial rules to maintain the integrity of legal documents and the notarial system.

    A Notary’s Oversight: When a Cedula Falls Short

    The administrative case was initiated by Florentino S. Unite, representing the heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, against Atty. Raymund P. Guzman. The central issue revolved around a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale notarized by Atty. Guzman, where the signatory, Jose Unite Torrices, claimed to be the sole heir of Herminigildo. However, Torrices presented only his community tax certificate (CTC) as proof of identity. The complainant argued that he, Florentino, was the rightful heir, and the notarization was improper due to the inadequate identification of Torrices. This action led to the cancellation of Herminigildo’s title and the issuance of a new one in favor of the buyer, Francisco U. Tamayo. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether Atty. Guzman violated the Notarial Rules by failing to properly identify the signatory.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the public interest inherent in the act of notarization. As stated in the decision:

    Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the act of notarization is impressed with public interest. Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credence. As such, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.

    This highlights the gravity of the responsibilities entrusted to notaries public. The Court referenced Section 2 (b) (1) and (2), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which stipulates that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present and either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Further defining this, Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules specifies what constitutes “competent evidence of identity”:

    Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on:
    (a) At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or

    The Court noted Atty. Guzman’s failure to adhere to these rules. The Deed itself indicated that Torrices only presented a CTC, which does not meet the criteria for competent evidence of identity. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a community tax certificate is not a valid form of identification for notarization purposes, emphasizing that competent identification requires a document with a photograph and signature.

    Atty. Guzman argued that he conducted further inquiries and required other documents, but the Court found this unconvincing since these details were not reflected in the Deed’s acknowledgment. The acknowledgment portion of the Deed stated that Torrices was “known to me,” which the Court distinguished from being “personally known.” The phrase “personally known” implies a deeper familiarity, independent of representations made during notarization, assuring the notary of the signatory’s identity without needing documentary verification. The Court clarified that personal knowledge comes from:

    awareness, understanding, or knowledge of the signatory’s identity and circumstances gained through firsthand observation or experience which therefore serve as guarantee of the signatory’s identity and thus eliminate the need for the verification process of documentary identification.

    Given that Atty. Guzman claimed to have conducted further verification, the Court inferred that he lacked the requisite personal knowledge of Torrices. The Court also underscored the ethical obligations of lawyers, citing Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By failing to properly perform his notarial duties, Atty. Guzman was found to have engaged in conduct that undermined the integrity of the legal profession.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that notaries must be meticulous in their duties. Failure to properly verify the identity of signatories can lead to legal complications and erode public trust in the notarial system. The Court held Atty. Guzman liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer, imposing penalties that included suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from future commissions.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Guzman violated the Notarial Rules by failing to properly verify the identity of a signatory using competent evidence, relying instead on a community tax certificate (CTC).
    What is considered “competent evidence of identity” under the Notarial Rules? Competent evidence includes at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as a passport, driver’s license, or PRC ID.
    Why is a community tax certificate (CTC) not considered a valid form of identification? A CTC is not considered valid because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing before the notary public, which are crucial for proper identification.
    What is the difference between being “known to me” and “personally known” to a notary public? “Personally known” implies a deeper familiarity with the signatory’s identity and circumstances, gained through firsthand observation, which eliminates the need for documentary verification, unlike merely being “known to me.”
    What penalties were imposed on Atty. Guzman? Atty. Guzman was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
    What ethical rule did Atty. Guzman violate? Atty. Guzman violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
    What is the significance of the act of notarization? Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, thus requiring notaries to exercise utmost care.
    Can a notary public be excused from requiring competent evidence of identity? Yes, if the signatory is personally known to the notary public, meaning the notary has firsthand knowledge of the signatory’s identity and circumstances independent of representations made during notarization.

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical role notaries public play in upholding the integrity of legal documents. Strict compliance with the Notarial Rules and ethical standards is paramount to maintaining public trust and ensuring the validity of notarized documents. Failure to adhere to these standards can result in severe penalties, impacting both the notary’s professional standing and the legal profession as a whole.

    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: Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite v. Atty. Raymund P. Guzman, G.R. No. 64418, July 02, 2018

  • Can Lawyers’ Family Members Buy Property Involved in Litigation? Insights from a Landmark Philippine Case

    Key Takeaway: The Prohibition on Lawyers Acquiring Litigation Property Does Not Extend to Their Family Members

    Christopher R. Santos v. Atty. Joseph A. Arrojado, A.C. No. 8502, June 27, 2018, 834 Phil. 176

    Imagine you’re involved in a legal battle over a piece of property. You discover that the opposing lawyer’s son has purchased the property while the case is still ongoing. Is this legal? This real-world scenario played out in the Philippines, leading to a significant Supreme Court ruling that clarified the boundaries of legal ethics and property law. In the case of Christopher R. Santos v. Atty. Joseph A. Arrojado, the court addressed whether the prohibition on lawyers acquiring property involved in litigation extends to their immediate family members.

    The central issue revolved around whether Atty. Arrojado violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code by allowing his son to purchase property that was the subject of a pending unlawful detainer case. The Supreme Court’s decision not only resolved this specific dispute but also set a precedent for similar cases, impacting how lawyers and their families navigate property transactions during litigation.

    Understanding the Legal Framework

    Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is a cornerstone in maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings. It states, “The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another… (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon on execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.”

    This provision aims to prevent conflicts of interest and preserve the trust and confidence between lawyers and their clients. The term “fiduciary relationship” refers to the duty of a lawyer to act in the best interest of their client. Violating this trust could lead to serious professional repercussions, including disbarment.

    Consider a scenario where a lawyer represents a client in a property dispute. If the lawyer or someone acting on their behalf buys the disputed property, it could be perceived as taking advantage of the client’s situation. This is why Article 1491 explicitly prohibits such actions.

    The Santos v. Arrojado Case: A Chronological Journey

    Christopher R. Santos filed an unlawful detainer case against Lilia Rodriguez, with Atty. Joseph A. Arrojado representing Rodriguez. While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Rodriguez sold one of the disputed properties to Atty. Arrojado’s son, Julius Arrojado, who was a registered nurse and businessman. Santos believed this transaction violated Article 1491, arguing that Atty. Arrojado used his son as a conduit to acquire the property.

    The case proceeded through several stages:

    • Santos filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking Atty. Arrojado’s disbarment.
    • The IBP conducted an investigation, culminating in a recommendation to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence that Atty. Arrojado had any direct interest in the property.
    • The IBP’s Board of Governors adopted the recommendation, and Santos’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
    • The case reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the IBP’s findings and the legal arguments presented.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling was clear: “Undeniably, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code prohibits the purchase by lawyers of any interest in the subject matter of the litigation in which they participated by reason of their profession. Here, however, respondent lawyer was not the purchaser or buyer of the property or rights in litigation. For, in point of fact, it was his son Julius, and not respondent lawyer, who purchased the subject property.”

    The Court further emphasized, “Were we to include within the purview of the law the members of the immediate family or relatives of the lawyer laboring under disqualification, we would in effect be amending the law.”

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    The Santos v. Arrojado ruling has significant implications for legal practitioners and property transactions during litigation:

    • Lawyers can rest assured that their family members are not barred from purchasing properties involved in cases they handle, provided there is no evidence of the lawyer’s direct involvement or benefit.
    • Clients and opposing parties should be cautious about making assumptions regarding the motives behind property purchases by lawyers’ family members.
    • The ruling underscores the importance of clear evidence in alleging ethical violations, emphasizing that mere suspicion or speculation is insufficient.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always ensure that any property transaction during litigation is conducted transparently and with proper documentation.
    • Be aware of the boundaries set by Article 1491 and consult legal counsel if unsure about potential conflicts of interest.
    • Understand that the law’s prohibitions are specific and cannot be extended without clear evidence of wrongdoing.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Can a lawyer’s family member buy property involved in a case the lawyer is handling?
    Yes, according to the Supreme Court ruling in Santos v. Arrojado, a lawyer’s family member can purchase property involved in litigation without violating Article 1491, provided there is no evidence that the lawyer benefited from or facilitated the transaction.

    What is the purpose of Article 1491 in the Civil Code?
    The purpose of Article 1491 is to prevent legal professionals from taking advantage of their fiduciary relationship with clients by acquiring properties involved in litigation they are handling.

    Does the prohibition in Article 1491 apply to all legal professionals?
    No, it specifically applies to justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of court, other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, and lawyers.

    What should I do if I suspect a lawyer of unethical behavior in property transactions?
    Document your concerns and gather evidence. File a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or seek legal advice to understand your options.

    How can I ensure that my property transactions during litigation are ethical?
    Maintain transparency, consult with an independent legal advisor, and ensure that all transactions are properly documented and disclosed to relevant parties.

    ASG Law specializes in property law and legal ethics. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Upholding Ethical Conduct: Attorney’s Suspension for Abandonment and Unreturned Fees

    The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Atty. Ramon Y. Gargantos, Sr., for six months due to professional misconduct. This decision underscores a lawyer’s duty to uphold the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, Gargantos was found to have abandoned his client, Pelagio Vicencio Sorongon, Jr., by demanding additional “pocket money” beyond the agreed legal fees and failing to return the unearned portion of the P200,000.00 paid, as well as the client’s documents. This ruling serves as a reminder to attorneys of their obligations to clients, reinforcing the principles of trust and accountability within the legal profession.

    When Pocket Money Becomes a Breach of Trust: The Gargantos Case

    The case revolves around Pelagio Vicencio Sorongon, Jr., a retired businessman facing charges before the Sandiganbayan. He hired Atty. Ramon Y. Gargantos, Sr. to represent him, paying P200,000.00 for legal services. However, their professional relationship deteriorated when Gargantos demanded additional money for personal expenses, threatening to abandon Sorongon if his demands were not met. This led to Gargantos withdrawing his services abruptly, leaving Sorongon without counsel and prompting a complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for unethical behavior.

    At the heart of the issue lies the violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which emphasizes a lawyer’s duty to hold client funds and properties in trust. The relevant provisions state:

    CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

    RULE 16.01. — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

    The court’s decision hinged on Gargantos’ failure to uphold these standards, specifically by abandoning his client and not returning the unearned fees and documents. The IBP, after investigating the matter, initially recommended a one-year suspension and the return of funds, later modifying the decision to mandate the return of the entire P200,000.00. The Supreme Court, while adopting the IBP’s findings, tempered the penalty to a six-month suspension, considering Gargantos’ advanced age and this being his first offense. This reflects a nuanced approach to disciplinary actions, balancing the need for accountability with considerations of mitigating factors.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of Gargantos’ actions, stating that his demand for additional money and subsequent abandonment of his client constituted a serious breach of professional ethics. The court’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining a fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client, where trust and integrity are paramount. This case highlights the potential consequences for attorneys who prioritize personal gain over their ethical obligations.

    The court also took into account the specific circumstances of the case, including Gargantos’ failure to participate in the IBP proceedings despite being given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. This lack of engagement further solidified the perception of misconduct and contributed to the court’s decision to impose disciplinary action. The ruling sends a clear message that attorneys must actively defend themselves against accusations of unethical behavior and cooperate with disciplinary investigations.

    Building on this principle, the Sorongon v. Gargantos case reaffirms the standards of conduct expected of lawyers in the Philippines. It serves as a crucial precedent for future disciplinary cases involving similar issues of client abandonment and financial accountability. It also highlights the power of the IBP to act as a regulatory body that ensures all lawyers are abiding by the law, and that due process has been followed.

    The decision in Sorongon v. Gargantos has several practical implications for both lawyers and clients. First, it serves as a deterrent against unethical behavior by attorneys, reminding them of the potential consequences of abandoning clients or mishandling their funds. Second, it empowers clients to seek redress when they believe their lawyers have acted unethically. Third, it reinforces the importance of clear and transparent fee arrangements between lawyers and clients, minimizing the potential for disputes and misunderstandings.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Gargantos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by abandoning his client, demanding additional fees, and failing to return unearned fees and documents.
    What specific violations were found? Atty. Gargantos was found to have violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the CPR, which require lawyers to hold client funds and properties in trust and to account for them properly.
    What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Gargantos? The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Gargantos from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return the P200,000.00 in legal fees to Sorongon, including all pertinent documents.
    Why was the initial penalty modified? The initial recommendation of a one-year suspension was tempered to six months due to Atty. Gargantos’ advanced age and the fact that this was his first offense.
    What is the significance of Canon 16 of the CPR? Canon 16 emphasizes that a lawyer must hold all client funds and properties in trust, ensuring that these assets are managed ethically and responsibly.
    What recourse do clients have if their lawyer acts unethically? Clients can file a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which investigates allegations of unethical behavior and recommends appropriate disciplinary actions.
    What is the role of the IBP in disciplinary proceedings? The IBP investigates complaints against lawyers, conducts hearings, and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding disciplinary actions.
    How does this case impact the legal profession in the Philippines? This case reinforces the importance of ethical conduct and accountability within the legal profession, serving as a reminder to lawyers of their obligations to clients.
    Can advanced age be a mitigating factor in disciplinary cases? Yes, the Supreme Court may consider factors such as advanced age, health, and first-time offense when determining the appropriate penalty in disciplinary cases.

    In conclusion, the Sorongon v. Gargantos case underscores the importance of ethical conduct and accountability within the legal profession. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to attorneys of their obligations to clients and the potential consequences of unethical behavior. This case reinforces the principles of trust and integrity, which are essential to maintaining the public’s confidence in the legal system.

    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: PELAGIO VICENCIO SORONGON, JR. vs. ATTY. RAMON Y. GARGANTOS, SR., A.C. No. 11326, June 27, 2018

  • Upholding the Integrity of Barangay Dispute Resolution: Lawyers Barred from Lupon Appearances

    The Supreme Court in this case affirmed that lawyers are prohibited from participating in Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508, which requires parties to appear in person without legal assistance, to foster amicable settlements at the barangay level. This decision reinforces the intent of the law to create a level playing field where disputing parties can personally confront each other without the complexities introduced by legal representation. The ruling serves as a reminder to lawyers to respect legal processes and uphold the spirit of the Katarungang Pambarangay system, which aims to provide a cost-effective and efficient means of resolving disputes within communities.

    A Lawyer’s Overreach: When Legal Expertise Trespasses Barangay Justice

    This case originated from a complaint filed by Celestino Malecdan against Atty. Simpson T. Baldo for violating Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508 (P.D. 1508), also known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Malecdan alleged that Atty. Baldo appeared as counsel for spouses James and Josephine Baldo during a hearing before the Lupon of Barangay Pico in La Trinidad, Benguet, despite the explicit prohibition against legal representation in such proceedings. The central legal question revolved around whether Atty. Baldo’s appearance violated the proscription outlined in P.D. 1508 and, if so, whether such conduct warranted disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

    The Katarungang Pambarangay system is designed to provide a forum for resolving disputes at the grassroots level, fostering community harmony and reducing the burden on the courts. Section 9 of P.D. 1508 is very clear on this matter:

    SEC. 9. Appearance of parties in person. – In all proceedings provided for herein, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel/representative, with the exception of minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.

    The rationale behind this provision is that personal confrontation between the parties, absent the involvement of lawyers, promotes spontaneity and a more favorable environment for amicable settlements. The Supreme Court in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals expounded on the importance of this requirement, stating:

    “x x x a personal confrontation between the parties without the intervention of a counsel or representative would generate spontaneity and a favorable disposition to amicable settlement on the part of the disputants. In other words, the said procedure is deemed conducive to the successful resolution of the dispute at the barangay level.”

    x x x x

    “To ensure compliance with the requirement of personal confrontation between the parties, and thereby, the effectiveness of the barangay conciliation proceedings as a mode of dispute resolution, the above-quoted provision is couched in mandatory language. Moreover, pursuant to the familiar maxim in statutory construction dictating that ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius‘, the express exceptions made regarding minors and incompetents must be construed as exclusive of all others not mentioned.”

    Atty. Baldo admitted to being present during the proceedings before the Punong Barangay, but he argued that he was permitted by the parties to participate in the hearing. He claimed he sought permission from both the officer-in-charge and the complainant, Celestino Malecdan, before joining the dialogue with James Baldo, his uncle. However, Malecdan insisted that he vehemently objected to Atty. Baldo’s presence, asserting that the lawyer used his influence to participate in the proceedings despite the legal prohibition. The Investigating Commissioner initially recommended a mere warning for Atty. Baldo, opining that the language of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law was not definitive enough to bar lawyers unqualifiedly, but the IBP Board of Governors reversed this decision.

    The IBP Board of Governors found Atty. Baldo’s appearance as counsel for spouses James and Josephine Baldo in a Katarungang Pambarangay hearing a violation and recommended that he be reprimanded. This decision underscored the mandatory nature of the prohibition against legal representation in barangay conciliation proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that Atty. Baldo’s actions violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandates lawyers to uphold the law.

    Canon 1 of the CPR states: “A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.” Rule 1.01 further specifies that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Court reasoned that Atty. Baldo’s violation of P.D. 1508 fell squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01, as it constituted unlawful conduct.

    The Supreme Court articulated that a lawyer’s obedience to the law is paramount, not only as a professional obligation but also as a means of inspiring public respect for the law. In Maniquiz v. Atty. Emelo, the Court emphasized the importance of a lawyer’s personal deference to the law, stating that it “not only speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law.” Any act that defies, disobeys, or disregards the law is considered unlawful, regardless of whether it involves criminality.

    The Court ultimately found Atty. Baldo liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The decision serves as a reminder to all members of the bar of the importance of upholding the integrity of the Katarungang Pambarangay system. By appearing as counsel in a prohibited forum, Atty. Baldo undermined the intent of the law, which seeks to promote accessible and informal dispute resolution at the community level.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the significance of adhering to legal rules and ethical standards, even in seemingly minor or informal settings. It underscores that a lawyer’s duty to uphold the law extends to all aspects of their professional conduct and that any deviation from this duty can result in disciplinary action. The Court’s ruling also emphasizes the importance of preserving the integrity of the Katarungang Pambarangay system as a means of fostering community harmony and accessible justice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Baldo violated Section 9 of P.D. 1508 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by appearing as counsel in a Katarungang Pambarangay hearing. The Court addressed whether such conduct warranted disciplinary action.
    What is the Katarungang Pambarangay Law? The Katarungang Pambarangay Law (P.D. 1508) establishes a system of local dispute resolution through barangay conciliation, aiming to resolve conflicts at the community level. It mandates personal appearance of parties without legal representation to encourage amicable settlements.
    Why are lawyers prohibited from appearing in Lupon proceedings? Lawyers are prohibited to promote spontaneity and level the playing field, ensuring parties engage directly in resolving disputes. This encourages more amicable settlements at the barangay level.
    What is Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Rule 1.01 states that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” It underscores a lawyer’s duty to uphold the law and maintain ethical standards in all professional activities.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court found Atty. Baldo liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR. He was reprimanded for appearing as counsel in a Katarungang Pambarangay hearing, which is a prohibited act.
    What is the significance of this ruling for lawyers? This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal rules and ethical standards, even in informal settings. Lawyers must uphold the integrity of the Katarungang Pambarangay system.
    What is the consequence for violating the prohibition on lawyer appearances? Violating the prohibition can lead to disciplinary action, such as a reprimand, as demonstrated in this case. The severity of the sanction depends on the specific circumstances and the lawyer’s conduct.
    Can parties bring representatives who are not lawyers? Only minors and incompetents can be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers. Otherwise, Section 9 of P.D. 1508 mandates that all parties must appear in person.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Malecdan v. Baldo serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers and the importance of respecting legal processes, especially in community-based dispute resolution systems. Lawyers must always prioritize upholding the law and 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: CELESTINO MALECDAN, VS. ATTY. SIMPSON T. BALDO, A.C. No. 12121, June 27, 2018