ASG Law

Tag: Legal Ethics

  • Attorney Misconduct: The Perils of Acquiring Client Property in Litigation

    The Supreme Court, in this case, has ruled that an attorney’s act of acquiring a portion of a client’s property as payment for attorney’s fees while litigation is still pending constitutes a breach of professional ethics. Such conduct violates Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation in which they participate. This decision underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and the importance of maintaining a clear separation between their personal interests and their duties to their clients.

    Conflicts of Interest: When a Lawyer’s Gain Becomes a Client’s Loss

    The case revolves around Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan, who represented the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos in several cases to recover a parcel of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. After Juan’s death, his heirs filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Linsangan, alleging that he had forced them to sign documents, colluded with their estranged mother to sell the land, and evaded taxes. The core issue lies in whether Atty. Linsangan’s actions violated his oath as a lawyer, particularly regarding the acquisition of property under litigation and the handling of client funds.

    The facts reveal that Atty. Linsangan and Juan entered into a Contract for Professional Services on September 22, 1997, stipulating that Atty. Linsangan would receive a contingent fee equivalent to 50% of the market or zonal value of any recovered property. The contract specified that this fee would become due upon the finality of a favorable court decision, a compromise settlement, or any other mode by which Juan’s interest in the property was recognized. Furthermore, a Supplemental Compromise Agreement was later executed, dividing the recovered property between Juan’s heirs and Atty. Linsangan, with Atty. Linsangan waiving most of his share in favor of his wife and children. This division occurred while cases involving the property were still pending before the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court.

    Building on this principle, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code explicitly 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 an 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.

    The Supreme Court found that Atty. Linsangan’s actions directly contravened this provision. Even though Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which specifically forbade lawyers from purchasing interests in the subject matter of litigation, is not explicitly reproduced in the new Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), the prohibition still applies. Canon 1 of the CPR mandates that “a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process,” and Rule 138, Sec. 3 requires every lawyer to take an oath to “obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein.” Thus, by violating Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Atty. Linsangan also violated his lawyer’s oath.

    An exception exists where the payment of a contingent fee occurs after the judgment has been rendered. However, this exception did not apply in Atty. Linsangan’s case because the property transfer occurred while litigation was still ongoing in the CA and the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that there was no indication that these cases had been dismissed with finality before the Compromise Agreement and Supplemental Compromise Agreement were executed.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that Atty. Linsangan’s act of dividing his attorney’s fees with his wife and children, who are not licensed to practice law, violated Rule 9.02 and Canon 9 of the CPR. These provisions prohibit a lawyer from dividing fees for legal services with non-lawyers, thereby preventing the unauthorized practice of law.

    Adding to the misconduct, Atty. Linsangan sold the entire property based on Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) that, except for the one executed by his wife and children, only authorized him to represent the complainants in litigation, not to sell their shares. This unauthorized sale, combined with his unilateral appropriation of the downpayment without the complainants’ consent, constituted a breach of client trust and a violation of Canon 16 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to hold client funds and properties in trust. A lawyer cannot simply take a client’s money because the client owes them fees; this violates the professional ethics expected of all lawyers.

    The Court emphasized that the attorney-client relationship is built on trust and confidence, requiring attorneys to exercise utmost good faith and fairness. In this case, Atty. Linsangan prioritized his personal interests over those of his clients. As a result of these violations, the Supreme Court found Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan liable and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Linsangan violated his lawyer’s oath by acquiring a portion of his client’s property as payment for attorney’s fees while litigation was still pending.
    What is Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code? Article 1491(5) prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation in which they are involved due to their profession. This ensures lawyers do not abuse their position for personal gain.
    Why was the Supplemental Compromise Agreement problematic? The Supplemental Compromise Agreement, which divided the recovered property, was problematic because it was executed while cases involving the property were still pending in appellate courts.
    What is the significance of Canon 1 of the CPR? Canon 1 of the CPR requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for the legal process. This underscores the lawyer’s duty to adhere to all legal standards.
    Did Atty. Linsangan have the authority to sell the entire property? No, Atty. Linsangan did not have the authority to sell the entire property because the Special Powers of Attorney he possessed only authorized him to represent the clients in litigation, not to sell their shares.
    What does Canon 16 of the CPR require? Canon 16 of the CPR requires lawyers to hold in trust all client funds and properties that come into their possession, preventing them from using these assets for their personal benefit without consent.
    What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Linsangan? Atty. Linsangan was suspended from the practice of law for six months due to his violations of the lawyer’s oath, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, and various canons of the CPR.
    What is the underlying principle behind these ethical rules? The underlying principle is to maintain the integrity of the legal profession by preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring that lawyers prioritize their clients’ interests above their own.

    This case serves as a reminder of the stringent ethical responsibilities that lawyers must uphold, particularly regarding conflicts of interest and the handling of client assets. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must always prioritize their clients’ interests and avoid any actions that could compromise their professional integrity.

    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: HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS VS. ATTY. JAIME S. LINSANGAN, G.R. No. 63391, July 24, 2017

  • Upholding Ethical Standards: Attorneys and the Prohibition Against Forum Shopping

    In Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. v. Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers concerning forum shopping. The Court found Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for his involvement in filing a case that constituted forum shopping. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must uphold the integrity of the legal system and avoid actions that undermine the efficient administration of justice, emphasizing that fidelity to a client’s cause should not come at the expense of truth and fairness.

    Navigating Legal Ethics: When Does Zealous Advocacy Cross the Line into Forum Shopping?

    The case arose from a property dispute where Atty. Baclig represented Eleuterio Lamorena, et al., in an amended complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr., and others. This complaint questioned the occupancy of a certain parcel of land. Prior to this, Lamorena, et al. had filed a similar complaint before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) concerning the same property and parties, seeking similar reliefs. The heart of the matter was whether Atty. Baclig’s actions in pursuing the case in the RTC, while a similar case was pending in the MTCC, constituted forum shopping, a practice strictly prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    The Supreme Court reiterated that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, primarily aimed at safeguarding the public and the courts by ensuring that members of the legal profession adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. The Court emphasized that in such proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to present substantial evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct. In this case, Dr. Alicias argued that Atty. Baclig consented to false assertions in the amended complaint and knowingly filed an action barred by res judicata, laches, and lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the primary issue revolved around whether Atty. Baclig engaged in forum shopping by pursuing a case in the RTC with similar objectives to a pending case in the MTCC.

    Addressing the issue of alleged false assertions, the Court noted that the disputed statements regarding the nature of the property and the timing of inheritance were central to the ongoing litigation. These assertions were directly related to the core issue of who had the right to possess the property. Therefore, Atty. Baclig could not be faulted for advocating his clients’ position on these matters. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that Atty. Baclig’s pleadings were privileged and protected from legal action. As for the claims of res judicata, laches, and lack of jurisdiction, the Court found that these were not substantiated by sufficient evidence.

    The critical point of contention, however, was the allegation of forum shopping. The Court explained the requisites for establishing forum shopping, stating:

    In forum shopping, the following requisites should concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Atty. Alonso, et. al. v. Atty. Relamida, Jr., AC No. 8481, August 3, 2010.

    The Court observed that the amended complaint filed by Lamorena, et al. in the MTCC sought the nullification of the mortgage contract and deed of sale that transferred the property to Dr. Alicias and his co-defendants, along with a declaration that Lamorena, et al., were the absolute owners of the property. Subsequently, a similar amended complaint was filed in the RTC, seeking essentially the same reliefs. Despite the MTCC case being dismissed, the Court found that the filing of the second complaint while the first was pending constituted forum shopping.

    The Court clarified that Atty. Baclig’s culpability was not diminished by the fact that he did not serve as counsel in the MTCC case. His failure to deny knowledge of the pending similar complaint in the MTCC suggested an awareness and tacit approval of the forum shopping. This was a critical factor in the Court’s decision, as it indicated a disregard for the rules against filing multiple suits for the same cause of action.

    The Supreme Court underscored the ethical duties of lawyers, referencing Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

    Canon 1 of the CPR requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 prohibits the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes. Teodoro III v. Atty. Gonzales, A.C. No. 6760, January 30, 2013.

    By engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Baclig violated these provisions. The Court reiterated that while a lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause, this duty does not justify actions that undermine the integrity of the justice system. The filing of multiple petitions for the same cause is an abuse of court processes and constitutes improper conduct that obstructs the administration of justice.

    Given Atty. Baclig’s background as a former judge, the Court emphasized his heightened responsibility to uphold the tenets of the legal profession and ensure proper observance of ethical standards. The act of forum shopping was deemed particularly egregious in light of his prior judicial experience, making his actions a disservice to the principles he once upheld from the bench.

    FAQs

    What is forum shopping? Forum shopping occurs when a party files multiple cases based on the same cause of action, seeking the same relief in different courts, with the intent to obtain a favorable decision.
    What are the elements of forum shopping? The elements are: (1) identity of parties or interests represented, (2) identity of rights asserted and relief sought, and (3) the identity of the preceding elements such that a judgment in one action would constitute res judicata in the other.
    What is the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)? The CPR is a set of ethical rules that govern the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines. It aims to ensure that lawyers act with integrity, competence, and diligence in their dealings with clients, the courts, and the public.
    What is Canon 1 of the CPR? Canon 1 requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. It obligates lawyers to contribute to the efficient administration of justice.
    What is Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR? Rule 12.04 prohibits lawyers from unduly delaying a case, impeding the execution of a judgment, or misusing court processes. It reinforces the duty to act with candor and fairness before the courts.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court found Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig administratively liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to his involvement in forum shopping.
    What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Baclig? Atty. Baclig was censured for his actions and sternly warned that any future violations of his duties as a lawyer would be dealt with more severely.
    Why is forum shopping considered unethical for lawyers? Forum shopping is unethical because it undermines the integrity of the judicial system by seeking to obtain favorable outcomes through manipulative means, wasting judicial resources, and causing unnecessary delays.
    Can a lawyer be held liable for the actions of their client in relation to forum shopping? Yes, if the lawyer is aware of the client’s actions and participates in or facilitates the forum shopping, they can be held liable for violating ethical rules.

    The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial reminder to all members of the Bar about the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to the rules of procedure. It reinforces the principle that lawyers must act with integrity and avoid any actions that undermine the fair and efficient administration of justice. The censure of Atty. Baclig underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of professional responsibility 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: DR. EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017

  • Attorney Neglect and Falsehood: Disciplinary Action for Violating Professional Responsibility

    The Supreme Court held that Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting a client’s case and engaging in falsehood. Specifically, he failed to file a position paper despite accepting payment and prepared a perjured affidavit. This decision underscores the high standards of diligence and honesty required of lawyers, reinforcing their duty to serve clients competently and ethically. The Court suspended Atty. Jumamil from practicing law for one year and revoked his notarial commission.

    When a Lawyer’s Neglect and Deceit Harm a Client: Upholding Legal Ethics

    Joy T. Samonte filed a complaint against Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil, seeking his disbarment for actions unbecoming of a lawyer and for betrayal of trust. The case stemmed from Atty. Jumamil’s failure to file a position paper on behalf of Samonte in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), despite receiving attorney’s fees. This neglect resulted in an adverse decision against Samonte. Further, Atty. Jumamil prepared and notarized an affidavit from a witness he believed to be perjured.

    The central issue was whether Atty. Jumamil should be held administratively liable for his actions. The Supreme Court addressed this issue by examining the duties and responsibilities of lawyers to their clients and to the court. The relationship between a lawyer and client is built on trust and confidence. Lawyers must be mindful of their client’s causes and exercise diligence in handling their affairs, maintaining a high standard of legal proficiency, and dedicating their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases. Lawyers must employ fair and honest means to achieve lawful objectives.

    These principles are articulated in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Canon 10 emphasizes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 states that “A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.” Canon 18 requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 specifies that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

    The Court found that a lawyer-client relationship was established when Atty. Jumamil agreed to represent Samonte before the NLRC and received payment for his services. Once such a relationship is established, the lawyer is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and diligence, and not to neglect the legal matter entrusted to him. In this case, Atty. Jumamil breached his duty by failing to file the position paper, resulting in an adverse ruling against Samonte.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that even if Samonte failed to produce credible witnesses, this did not justify Atty. Jumamil abandoning his client’s cause. By voluntarily taking up Samonte’s case, Atty. Jumamil made an unqualified commitment to advance and defend her interests. He owed fidelity to her cause and had to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court cited Abay v. Montesino, where it was explained that a lawyer must present every remedy or defense within the law to support the client’s cause, irrespective of the lawyer’s personal view. As stated in Abay v. Montesino:

    Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Otherwise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

    Furthermore, the Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that Atty. Jumamil violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. He engaged in deliberate falsehood by preparing and notarizing the affidavit of Romeo, an intended witness, despite believing that Romeo was a perjured witness. The Lawyer’s Oath requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and refrain from doing any falsehood. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle in Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera, stating:

    The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients.

    The notarization of a perjured affidavit also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 4(a), Rule IV, which states that a notary public shall not perform any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public document, which carries significant legal weight. Therefore, a notary public must observe utmost care in performing their duties.

    In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court considered precedents. Given the violations, the Court suspended Atty. Jumamil from the practice of law for one year. Additionally, the Court revoked Atty. Jumamil’s notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court took a stern view of Atty. Jumamil’s actions, particularly his violation of legal ethics and his breach of duty to his client.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil should be held administratively liable for neglecting his client’s case and engaging in falsehood, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
    What specific actions did Atty. Jumamil take that led to the complaint? Atty. Jumamil failed to file a position paper for his client in an illegal dismissal case, despite receiving attorney’s fees. He also prepared and notarized an affidavit from a witness he believed to be perjured.
    What are the specific rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility that Atty. Jumamil violated? Atty. Jumamil violated Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in falsehood, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, which requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence.
    What was the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court found Atty. Jumamil guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, and his notarial commission was revoked.
    Why is the relationship between a lawyer and client considered one of utmost trust and confidence? Clients trust lawyers to be mindful of their cause, exercise diligence in handling their affairs, maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, and dedicate their full attention to their cases.
    What is the significance of notarization, and why is it important for notaries public to observe their duties carefully? Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Notaries public must observe their duties carefully to maintain public confidence in the integrity of this form of conveyance.
    Can a lawyer abandon a client’s case if the client fails to produce credible witnesses? No, a lawyer cannot abandon a client’s case on this basis. By voluntarily taking up the case, the lawyer makes an unqualified commitment to advance and defend the client’s interests.
    What does the Lawyer’s Oath require of attorneys? The Lawyer’s Oath requires attorneys to obey the laws of the land, refrain from doing any falsehood, and conduct themselves with all good fidelity to the courts and their clients.

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of upholding the standards of the legal profession and safeguarding the public trust. The penalties imposed reflect the gravity of the violations and serve as a deterrent against similar misconduct in the future.

    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: JOY T. SAMONTE vs. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, A.C. No. 11668, July 17, 2017

  • Upholding Client Trust: Attorney’s Negligence and the Duty to Refund Unearned Fees in the Philippines

    In Jocelyn Ignacio v. Atty. Daniel T. Alviar, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers concerning diligence and the handling of client funds. The Court reprimanded Atty. Alviar for neglecting his client’s case and failing to attend a scheduled arraignment. More significantly, the Court clarified the distinction between acceptance fees and attorney’s fees, ordering Atty. Alviar to refund a portion of the acceptance fee that was not commensurate to the legal services actually rendered. This ruling underscores the principle that attorneys must provide diligent service and that unearned fees should be returned to clients, reinforcing the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship.

    Neglect and Lost Trust: Can an Attorney Keep Fees When Diligence Falters?

    The case began when Jocelyn Ignacio hired Atty. Daniel T. Alviar to represent her son, who was detained by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Atty. Alviar charged an acceptance fee of PhP100,000. After receiving payments, Atty. Alviar visited Ignacio’s son briefly, secured case records, and filed a notice of appearance. However, he failed to attend the arraignment, citing a prior commitment and later admitting he had forgotten the date. Ignacio then sought another lawyer and requested a partial refund, which Atty. Alviar did not grant, leading to the administrative complaint.

    The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension and restitution of the full amount. The IBP Board of Governors later reduced the penalty to a reprimand with a stern warning. The Supreme Court affirmed the reprimand but modified the order of restitution, emphasizing the principle of quantum meruit, which means “as much as he deserves.” This principle guides the determination of reasonable attorney’s fees based on the actual services rendered.

    SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney’s; agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

    The Court underscored the lawyer’s duty to serve clients with competence and diligence, referencing Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). This canon mandates that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, they must serve the client with dedication. The Court cited Voluntad-Ramirez v. Atty. Bautista, quoting Santiago v. Fojas to highlight the lawyer’s responsibility:

    It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. Once he agrees to take up the cause of [his] client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.

    The Court distinguished between attorney’s fees and acceptance fees. Attorney’s fees compensate for legal services rendered, while acceptance fees compensate for the lawyer’s commitment to the case, precluding them from representing conflicting interests. Despite this distinction, the Court has consistently ordered the return of acceptance fees when a lawyer neglects their duties. In this case, the Court found that Atty. Alviar’s limited actions did not justify retaining the entire PhP100,000. Considering the brief consultation, filing of appearance, and record retrieval, the Court deemed PhP3,000 as reasonable compensation, ordering the return of the remaining PhP97,000 to Ignacio.

    The Court referred to Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the CPR, which provides guidelines for determining fair and reasonable fees. These factors include the time spent, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the importance of the subject matter, the skill demanded, and the lawyer’s professional standing. The ruling serves as a reminder to lawyers of their ethical obligations and the importance of upholding client trust through diligent service and fair compensation practices.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Alviar was negligent in handling the case of Ignacio’s son and whether he was entitled to retain the entire acceptance fee given his limited services.
    What is an acceptance fee? An acceptance fee is a charge imposed by a lawyer for accepting a case, compensating them for the commitment and the opportunity cost of not being able to represent conflicting parties.
    What is the principle of quantum meruit? Quantum meruit means “as much as he deserves” and is used to determine the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees based on the extent and value of the services provided. It prevents unjust enrichment.
    Why did the Court order Atty. Alviar to refund a portion of the fee? The Court ordered the refund because Atty. Alviar failed to diligently handle the case, attending to it minimally. He was deemed not entitled to the full fee based on the limited services rendered.
    What Canon of the CPR did Atty. Alviar violate? Atty. Alviar violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR, which require lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence and prohibit neglecting legal matters entrusted to them.
    What factors are considered in determining reasonable attorney’s fees? Factors include the time spent, the complexity of the case, the importance of the matter, the skill required, customary charges, and the lawyer’s professional standing, as outlined in Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the CPR.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Alviar and ordered him to restitute PhP97,000 to the complainant, representing the unearned portion of the acceptance fee.
    What is the significance of this ruling for clients? This ruling reinforces the right of clients to receive diligent service from their attorneys and to be refunded for fees that are not commensurate with the services actually provided, protecting them from negligent or opportunistic lawyers.

    This case emphasizes the importance of diligence and ethical conduct in the legal profession. Attorneys must honor their commitments to clients and provide competent service, and the courts will intervene to ensure fairness in fee arrangements. Attorneys should also be aware of how to conduct themselves in order to avoid liability from cases like this.

    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: Jocelyn Ignacio v. Atty. Daniel T. Alviar, A.C. No. 11482, July 17, 2017

  • Attorney Neglect and Falsehood: Disciplining Lawyers for Breaching Professional Responsibility

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Samonte v. Jumamil underscores the high standards of competence, diligence, and honesty expected of lawyers in the Philippines. The Court found Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil administratively liable for neglecting his client’s case by failing to file a position paper, and for violating the rules against falsehood by preparing and notarizing an affidavit he believed to be perjured. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to lawyers of their ethical obligations to clients and the legal profession, reinforcing the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal system. Lawyers must diligently handle entrusted legal matters and refrain from engaging in any form of deceit or misrepresentation.

    When a Promise is Broken: Examining a Lawyer’s Duty of Care and Candor

    This case originated from a complaint filed by Joy T. Samonte against her lawyer, Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil, alleging neglect and betrayal of trust. Samonte hired Jumamil to represent her in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). She paid him P8,000.00 as attorney’s fees to prepare her position paper. However, despite her repeated reminders, Atty. Jumamil failed to file the position paper, resulting in an adverse decision against Samonte, ordering her to pay P633,143.68 to the claimant workers. When confronted, Atty. Jumamil allegedly told her to sell her farm to pay the workers. In his defense, Atty. Jumamil argued that his failure to file the position paper was due to Samonte’s failure to produce credible witnesses and her alleged attempts to manipulate witness testimonies. He further claimed that Samonte instructed him to prepare an affidavit with contents hidden from the witness. This defense did not absolve him from liability.

    The core of the legal issue revolves around a lawyer’s duty to their client and to the court. The Supreme Court, echoing the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and client is built on trust and confidence. Clients expect their lawyers to be diligent and mindful of their cause, exercising the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. This expectation is codified in the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.

    CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

    Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

    CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

    Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

    The Court emphasized that a lawyer-client relationship begins when a lawyer agrees to handle a case and accepts legal fees, creating a duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. The failure to file the position paper, regardless of the client’s alleged shortcomings in providing credible witnesses, constituted a breach of this duty. The court cited Abay v. Montesino, emphasizing a lawyer’s obligation to provide every available remedy and defense for their client, stating:

    Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Otherwise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

    Moreover, the Court highlighted Atty. Jumamil’s violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. By preparing and notarizing the affidavit of Romeo, despite his belief that Romeo would be a perjured witness, Atty. Jumamil engaged in deliberate falsehood. This act goes against the Lawyer’s Oath, which requires lawyers to refrain from doing any falsehood and to conduct themselves with good fidelity to the courts and their clients. The court in Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera, expounded on this principle:

    The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”

    Furthermore, the notarization of a perjured affidavit violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 4 (a), Rule IV. This rule prohibits a notary public from performing any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. Notarization carries a substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Thus, a notary public must exercise utmost care in performing their duties to maintain public confidence in the integrity of this process.

    In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court considered jurisprudence and exercised sound judicial discretion. The Court adopted the IBP’s recommendation to suspend Atty. Jumamil from the practice of law for one (1) year, aligning with cases like Del Mundo v. Capistrano and Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr. Additionally, consistent with Dela Cruz v. Zabala, the Court revoked Atty. Jumamil’s notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, due to his violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Jumamil should be held administratively liable for neglecting his client’s case and for engaging in falsehood. The Supreme Court examined his failure to file a position paper and his notarization of a potentially perjured affidavit.
    What rules did Atty. Jumamil violate? Atty. Jumamil violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 (candor to the court) and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 (diligence to client) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document he suspected was perjured.
    What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Jumamil? The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Jumamil from the practice of law for one year. His notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
    When does a lawyer-client relationship begin? A lawyer-client relationship commences when a lawyer agrees to handle a client’s case and accepts money representing legal fees. This establishes a duty of care and diligence on the lawyer’s part.
    What is a lawyer’s duty to their client? A lawyer owes fidelity to their client’s cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. They must serve the client with competence and diligence, asserting every available remedy and defense.
    What does the Lawyer’s Oath require? The Lawyer’s Oath requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land, refrain from doing any falsehood, and conduct themselves with good fidelity to the courts and their clients. Honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness are core values.
    What is the significance of notarization? Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Notaries public must exercise utmost care and diligence in performing their duties.
    Can a lawyer refuse to notarize a document? Yes, a notary public shall not perform any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. This reflects the duty to uphold the integrity of the notarial process.

    The Supreme Court’s resolution in Samonte v. Jumamil reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers in the Philippines. It serves as a warning against neglecting client matters and engaging in any form of deceit or misrepresentation. Lawyers must uphold their duty of competence, diligence, and candor to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the public’s trust.

    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: JOY T. SAMONTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 11668, July 17, 2017

  • Upholding Ethical Standards: A Lawyer’s Duty to Financial Integrity and Professional Conduct

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory vs. Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers, both in their professional and private dealings. The Court suspended Atty. Mercado for one year for engaging in financial transactions that resulted in unpaid debts and the issuance of bouncing checks, emphasizing that such conduct constitutes gross misconduct and reflects poorly on the legal profession. This ruling reinforces that lawyers must maintain integrity and fair dealing, ensuring public trust in the judicial system.

    Breach of Trust: When a Lawyer’s Financial Dealings Tarnish Professional Integrity

    This case arose from a financial arrangement between Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory and Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado. The spouses entrusted their money to Atty. Mercado, who promised high monetary returns through investments. Initially, the investments yielded profits, but later, Atty. Mercado failed to return the principal and agreed-upon profits, leading to a significant outstanding debt. As a result, the spouses filed a disbarment case against Atty. Mercado, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. The core issue is whether Atty. Mercado’s actions warrant disciplinary measures for failing to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Canon 7 further stipulates that “A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.” These canons form the bedrock of ethical obligations for lawyers in the Philippines.

    The Court cited established jurisprudence to support its decision. As noted in Atty. Alcantara, et al. v. Atty. De Vera, “A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.” This highlights that a lawyer’s conduct, whether professional or private, impacts the perception of the entire legal community. A lawyer’s ethical breach reflects not only on the individual but on the legal profession as a whole.

    The IBP-CBD initially recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Mercado. However, the IBP Board of Governors modified this to disbarment, citing her violation of Canon 7 for evading the settlement of her financial obligations and failing to appear during the investigation. Upon reconsideration, the penalty was reduced to a one-year suspension, taking into account Atty. Mercado’s attempts to settle her obligations and expressions of remorse. This fluctuation in penalties underscores the balancing act between accountability and mitigating circumstances in disciplinary proceedings.

    The Court underscored the seriousness of issuing worthless checks, stating that “the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct.” The Court referenced Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, emphasizing that “Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system.” The act of issuing bouncing checks undermines the trust and confidence that clients and the public place in lawyers.

    Atty. Mercado’s defense of encountering financial difficulties was not considered an exonerating factor. The Court noted that she continued to engage in business despite these hardships, leading to accumulated debts and the issuance of dishonored checks. This indicates a pattern of irresponsible financial behavior that is inconsistent with the ethical standards expected of a lawyer. The integrity of a lawyer must be maintained irrespective of their financial status.

    The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors. This decision serves as a stern reminder that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment. It is critical for lawyers to understand that their actions, both in and out of the courtroom, reflect on their fitness to practice law.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado should be held administratively liable for failing to fulfill her financial obligations and issuing bouncing checks, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    What was the basis of the complaint against Atty. Mercado? The complaint was based on Atty. Mercado’s failure to return investments and profits to Spouses Victory, and the subsequent issuance of bouncing checks to settle her debt.
    What did the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommend? The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) initially recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Mercado, which the IBP Board of Governors modified to disbarment before eventually reducing it to a one-year suspension.
    What Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Mercado violate? Atty. Mercado violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 7 (upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).
    Why did the Supreme Court impose a one-year suspension? The Supreme Court imposed the suspension to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to emphasize that lawyers must maintain high standards of morality, honesty, and fair dealing.
    Can a lawyer be disciplined for actions outside their professional capacity? Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to discipline lawyers for misconduct committed in both their professional and private capacities, especially if it indicates unfitness for the profession.
    What is the significance of issuing bouncing checks in this case? The issuance of bouncing checks was considered gross misconduct, undermining the trust and confidence the public places in lawyers, who are expected to be vanguards of the legal system.
    Did Atty. Mercado’s financial difficulties excuse her conduct? No, the Court did not consider Atty. Mercado’s financial difficulties as an excuse, noting that she continued to engage in business despite her financial hardships.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for lawyers? This ruling reinforces that lawyers must handle their financial affairs responsibly and ethically, as failure to do so can result in disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment.

    In conclusion, the Victory vs. Mercado case serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in the Philippines. It emphasizes that maintaining financial integrity and ethical conduct are integral to upholding the dignity of the legal profession. Lawyers must be diligent in fulfilling their obligations and maintaining the public’s trust.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory vs. Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado, A.C. No. 10580, July 12, 2017

  • Judicial Clemency and Attorney Reinstatement: Demonstrating True Reform and Remorse

    The Supreme Court ruled that a disbarred lawyer’s petition for reinstatement was denied because he failed to provide sufficient evidence of genuine remorse and reformation, particularly reconciliation with the victim of his fraudulent acts. The Court emphasized that judicial clemency requires demonstrable proof of rehabilitation and a commitment to upholding ethical standards, not just testimonials of good character. This decision reinforces the high standards of conduct required for members of the bar and ensures that only those who have truly atoned for their past misconduct are allowed to practice law again, safeguarding public trust in the legal profession.

    When Forgiveness Falters: Can a Disbarred Attorney Prove Genuine Reform?

    Rolando S. Torres, previously disbarred for gross misconduct involving forgery and misrepresentation, sought reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. His initial disbarment stemmed from a case, Ting-Dumali v. Torres, where the Court found him guilty of serious ethical violations. The critical question before the Supreme Court was whether Torres had sufficiently demonstrated genuine remorse and reformation, warranting judicial clemency and reinstatement to the legal profession. The Court had to balance the possibility of forgiveness with the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and public confidence in the justice system.

    The Supreme Court’s resolution hinged on established guidelines for granting judicial clemency. These guidelines, previously articulated by the Court, require a petitioner to demonstrate several key factors. First, there must be proof of remorse and reformation, supported by credible testimonials from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges, and respected community members. Second, sufficient time must have passed since the imposition of the penalty to allow for meaningful reform. Third, the petitioner’s age must indicate that they still have productive years to contribute. Fourth, there must be a showing of promise, such as intellectual aptitude or potential for public service. Finally, any other relevant factors and circumstances that justify clemency should be considered.

    In evaluating Torres’s petition, the Court found his evidence lacking. While Torres submitted testimonials, including one from the Secretary of Justice, these were deemed insufficient to prove genuine reformation. The Court noted that Torres had not demonstrated remorse for his fraudulent acts against his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment case. Significantly, he had not attempted to reconcile with her, which the Court viewed as a critical indicator of true remorse. The Court emphasized that mere testimonials of good character are not enough; there must be tangible evidence of changed behavior and a commitment to ethical conduct.

    The Court’s decision also highlighted Torres’s failure to demonstrate potential for future public service. At 70 years old, he did not provide evidence that he still had productive years ahead or any specific plans to contribute positively to the legal profession or the community. This lack of future-oriented plans further weakened his case for judicial clemency. The Supreme Court reinforced that reinstatement to the bar is not merely a matter of personal desire, but a privilege that must be earned through demonstrable rehabilitation and a commitment to ethical practice.

    The decision in this case aligns with established jurisprudence on judicial clemency. The Supreme Court has consistently held that reinstatement to the bar is a serious matter that requires a high degree of proof. In previous cases, the Court has emphasized that the primary consideration is the public interest and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The Court’s role is to protect the public from individuals who have demonstrated a lack of integrity or ethical judgment. Reinstatement is only warranted when the Court is fully satisfied that the individual has undergone a genuine transformation and is once again fit to be entrusted with the responsibilities of a lawyer. The Court quoted the guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:

    1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

    2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.

    3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.

    4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.

    5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres serves as a strong reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers and the rigorous standards for reinstatement after disbarment. It underscores that judicial clemency is not granted lightly and requires a clear demonstration of genuine remorse, reformation, and a commitment to upholding the principles of the legal profession. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining public trust in lawyers and ensuring that only those who have truly atoned for their past misconduct are allowed to practice law.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Rolando S. Torres, a disbarred lawyer, had sufficiently demonstrated genuine remorse and reformation to warrant judicial clemency and reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. The Court assessed whether he met the established guidelines for reinstatement, focusing on proof of remorse, reformation, and potential for future service.
    What were the grounds for Torres’s original disbarment? Torres was originally disbarred for gross misconduct, including presentation of false testimony, participation in the forgery of a document, and gross misrepresentation in court. These actions violated the lawyer’s oath and Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, demonstrating a lack of integrity and ethical behavior.
    What evidence did Torres present to support his petition for reinstatement? Torres primarily presented testimonials and endorsements, including one from the Secretary of Justice, attesting to his good moral character. However, the Court found that these testimonials were insufficient to prove genuine reformation and remorse for his past misconduct.
    Why did the Supreme Court deny Torres’s petition? The Court denied the petition because Torres failed to provide substantial proof of genuine remorse and reformation, particularly reconciliation with his sister-in-law, the victim of his fraudulent acts. Additionally, he did not demonstrate any potential for future public service or show that he still had productive years ahead of him.
    What are the key guidelines for judicial clemency in reinstatement cases? The key guidelines include proof of remorse and reformation, sufficient time having passed since the penalty, the petitioner’s age indicating productive years ahead, a showing of promise and potential for public service, and other relevant factors justifying clemency. These guidelines ensure a comprehensive assessment of the petitioner’s rehabilitation.
    What is the significance of reconciliation with the victim in these cases? Reconciliation with the victim is considered a significant indicator of genuine remorse and a willingness to make amends for past misconduct. The Court views it as tangible evidence of a changed heart and a commitment to ethical behavior.
    How does this decision affect other disbarred lawyers seeking reinstatement? This decision reinforces the high standards required for reinstatement to the bar and emphasizes the need for demonstrable proof of remorse, reformation, and a commitment to ethical conduct. It serves as a reminder that judicial clemency is not granted lightly and requires a comprehensive demonstration of rehabilitation.
    What is the role of the Supreme Court in attorney reinstatement cases? The Supreme Court plays a critical role in protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. It carefully evaluates petitions for reinstatement to ensure that only those who have truly atoned for their past misconduct and demonstrated a commitment to ethical practice are allowed to practice law again.

    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: RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR, A.C. No. 5161, July 11, 2017

  • Due Process and Administrative Complaints: Ensuring Fairness in Judicial Discipline

    The Supreme Court’s decision in RE: LETTER OF RAFAEL DIMAANO REQUESTING INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES PURPORTEDLY PERPETRATED BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JANE AURORA C. LANTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND A CERTAIN ATTY. DOROTHY S. CAJAYON OF ZAMBOANGA CITY emphasizes the importance of verified complaints and substantial evidence in administrative proceedings against judges and lawyers. The Court dismissed unverified complaints against Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon, highlighting that mere allegations and conjectures are insufficient to warrant disciplinary action. This ruling safeguards the integrity of the judiciary and legal profession by preventing harassment through baseless complaints, while also upholding the standards of evidence required for administrative accountability. The decision underscores that disciplinary actions must be based on credible and verified information, ensuring fairness and protecting the reputations of those in the legal field.

    When Accusations Lack Foundation: Protecting Judicial Officers from Baseless Claims

    This case originated from two letter-complaints filed by Rosa Abdulharan and Rafael Dimaano, accusing Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Court of Appeals and Atty. Dorothy Cajayon of engaging in the sale of favorable decisions. Abdulharan’s letter to the Office of the President alleged that Atty. Cajayon was exploiting litigants by claiming Justice Lantion could be influenced with money. Similarly, Dimaano’s letter to the Department of Justice requested an investigation into the alleged syndicate selling favorable decisions. These letters were referred to the Supreme Court, leading to the consolidated administrative cases against Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon. The central legal question was whether these unverified complaints, lacking substantial evidence, could warrant disciplinary action against the respondents.

    The Supreme Court, in its resolution, firmly established the requirements for initiating administrative proceedings against judges and lawyers. The Court emphasized that such proceedings must be based on verified complaints supported by affidavits or substantial documentary evidence. Specifically, Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court dictates how disciplinary actions against judges of regular and special courts, as well as Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, can be initiated.

    SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Building on this, the Court also cited Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which outlines the process for complaints against lawyers. This rule mandates that complaints be verified and supported by affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge or by substantiating documents. The verification requirement ensures that allegations are made in good faith and are not mere speculations or fabrications.

    Section 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.

    The rationale behind requiring verification is to ensure the truthfulness and good faith of the allegations, preventing the filing of baseless complaints. The Supreme Court underscored that unverified pleadings, in cases where verification is required, are treated as unsigned and without legal effect. Moreover, administrative proceedings demand substantial evidence, defined as relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden of proving the charges rests on the complainant, who must provide substantial evidence to support their claims. Mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions are insufficient to sustain an administrative complaint, reinforcing the need for concrete and credible proof.

    In this particular case, the Court found that the letter-complaints were not only unverified but also lacked any supporting affidavits or documents to validate the serious accusations against Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon. The allegations were couched in general terms, failing to provide specific details or evidence of the alleged scheme to sell favorable decisions. The complainants did not demonstrate any concrete acts or present any proof that Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon were colluding in corrupt practices. Furthermore, the Court noted the considerable time lapse of seven years since Justice Lantion’s transfer to CA-Manila, casting doubt on the credibility and timeliness of the allegations.

    Quoting the case of Diomampo v. Judge Alpajora, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of carefully scrutinizing administrative complaints against judges to prevent undue harassment and ensure fairness. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions must be based on credible evidence and not on mere suspicion or speculation.

    It must be stressed that any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are by their nature highly penal, such that the respondent stands to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment. Thus, the Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation. As champion – at other times tormentor – of trial and appellate judges, this Court must be unrelenting in weeding the judiciary of unscrupulous judges, but it must also be quick in dismissing administrative complaints which serve no other purpose than to harass them. While it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against judges and other court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. When the complainant, as in the case at bar, relies on mere conjectures and suppositions and fails to substantiate her claim, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.

    The dismissal of the complaints against Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting its members from unsubstantiated accusations. This decision reinforces the principle that administrative complaints must meet stringent evidentiary requirements to warrant investigation and disciplinary action. By requiring verified complaints and substantial evidence, the Court safeguards the integrity of the legal profession and ensures that disciplinary proceedings are grounded in fairness and due process.

    The practical implication of this ruling is that individuals seeking to file administrative complaints against judges or lawyers must ensure their allegations are supported by credible evidence and verified through proper legal channels. This requirement protects legal professionals from harassment and ensures that disciplinary actions are reserved for cases with genuine merit. It also underscores the importance of responsible and substantiated reporting, discouraging the use of unverified accusations to tarnish the reputation of legal professionals.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether unverified complaints lacking substantial evidence could warrant disciplinary action against a Justice of the Court of Appeals and a lawyer. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for verified complaints and substantial evidence in administrative proceedings against legal professionals.
    What are the requirements for filing an administrative complaint against a judge? Administrative complaints against judges must be verified, supported by affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge, or by documents that substantiate the allegations. Anonymous complaints are acceptable if supported by public records of indubitable integrity, ensuring a foundation of credible evidence.
    What is the standard of proof in administrative proceedings? The standard of proof in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence, which means that there must be relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard requires more than mere allegations or conjectures.
    What happens if a complaint is not verified? If a complaint is required to be verified but lacks proper verification, it is treated as an unsigned pleading and has no legal effect. The verification requirement ensures the truthfulness and good faith of the allegations.
    What was the basis for dismissing the complaints in this case? The complaints were dismissed because they were unverified, lacked supporting affidavits or documents, and contained general allegations without specific details or evidence. The complainants failed to provide substantial evidence linking Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon to the alleged corrupt practices.
    What is the significance of the Diomampo v. Judge Alpajora case cited in this ruling? The Diomampo v. Judge Alpajora case underscores the need to carefully scrutinize administrative complaints against judges to prevent undue harassment and ensure fairness. It reinforces that disciplinary actions must be based on credible evidence, not mere suspicion or speculation.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for those considering filing administrative complaints? Individuals must ensure their allegations are supported by credible evidence and verified through proper legal channels before filing administrative complaints against judges or lawyers. This protects legal professionals from harassment and ensures that disciplinary actions are reserved for cases with genuine merit.
    Why is it important to have these safeguards in place? Safeguards like verified complaints and substantial evidence protect the integrity of the legal profession and the judiciary. They prevent baseless accusations from damaging reputations and ensure that disciplinary actions are fair and just.
    What role does the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) play in these cases? The OCA serves as a recommending body to the Supreme Court on administrative matters involving judges and court personnel. It evaluates complaints, conducts investigations, and makes recommendations to ensure the proper administration of justice within the judiciary.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution emphasizes the critical need for substantiated and verified complaints in administrative proceedings against members of the bench and bar. This ruling reinforces the importance of upholding due process and protecting legal professionals from baseless accusations, ensuring that disciplinary measures are reserved for cases supported by credible evidence. The decision serves as a reminder of the responsibility to ensure that accusations are well-founded before initiating potentially damaging administrative actions.

    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: RE: LETTER OF RAFAEL DIMAANO, A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA, July 11, 2017

  • Upholding Notarial Duty: An Attorney’s Suspension for Improper Document Notarization

    The Supreme Court decision in Atty. Mylene S. Yumul-Espina vs. Atty. Benedicto D. Tabaquero underscores the critical importance of adherence to notarial practices. The Court found Atty. Yumul-Espina guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing an affidavit without the affiant’s personal appearance. Consequently, she was suspended from the practice of law for six months, her notarial commission was revoked, and she was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to all notaries public to strictly observe the requirements of personal appearance and proper identification to ensure the integrity and authenticity of notarized documents.

    Oath Betrayed: Can a Lawyer’s Duty to a Client Excuse Violations of Notarial Law?

    This case began with a complaint filed by Atty. Mylene S. Yumul-Espina against Atty. Benedicto D. Tabaquero, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The complaint stemmed from Atty. Tabaquero’s representation of Derek Atkinson, a British citizen, in criminal cases against Atty. Yumul-Espina and Shirley Atkinson for falsification of documents. Atty. Yumul-Espina argued that Atty. Tabaquero was attempting to assert his client’s rights to own property in the Philippines, which is constitutionally prohibited for foreigners. In response, Atty. Tabaquero claimed he was acting on his client’s instructions after discovering the allegedly falsified Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, which Atty. Yumul-Espina notarized, purportedly signed by Derek Atkinson.

    The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially dismissed both the complaint and a counter-complaint filed by Atty. Tabaquero, based on affidavits of desistance from both parties. However, the Supreme Court reversed the IBP’s decision, emphasizing that disbarment proceedings are sui generis and imbued with public interest, and therefore, cannot be terminated solely based on the whims of the parties involved. The Court proceeded to evaluate the merits of both the complaint and the counter-complaint.

    The Court found Atty. Tabaquero not guilty of violating Canon 1 of the CPR. The Court reasoned that the criminal cases filed by Atty. Tabaquero on behalf of his client did not seek to transfer land ownership to a foreigner. Instead, they focused on the alleged falsification of the affidavit. The Court emphasized that the constitutional prohibition on foreign land ownership was irrelevant to the criminal complaints against Atty. Yumul-Espina and Shirley Atkinson.

    However, the Court took a different view of the counter-complaint against Atty. Yumul-Espina for violating the Notarial Law. The evidence presented, including Derek Atkinson’s passport entries and certification from the Bureau of Immigration, demonstrated that he was not in the Philippines on the date the Affidavit of Waiver was purportedly notarized. This evidence strongly suggested that Atty. Yumul-Espina notarized the document without the required personal appearance of the affiant.

    The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly require the personal presence of the signatory at the time of notarization. Specifically, Rule IV, Section 2(b) states:

    A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document –

    (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

    (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

    The Court noted that Atty. Yumul-Espina failed to adequately address this critical issue in her pleadings before the IBP. This failure, combined with the evidence presented, led the Court to conclude that she had indeed violated the Notarial Law. As a result, the Court imposed the penalties of suspension from the practice of law for six months, revocation of her notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. This decision reaffirms the importance of notarial duties and the consequences of failing to uphold them.

    The Supreme Court highlighted that administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from civil and criminal cases, and can proceed independently. The outcome of this administrative case does not directly impact the pending criminal cases involving the parties. This separation underscores the unique nature of disciplinary proceedings within the legal profession, focused on maintaining ethical standards and protecting the public.

    The Court also issued a reminder to members of the bar to exercise caution when filing disbarment complaints. Complaints motivated by retaliation, mistake, or misapprehension of facts can waste valuable time and resources of the IBP and the Court. While the right to file a complaint is protected, it must be exercised responsibly and with due diligence.

    This case reinforces several key principles of legal ethics and notarial practice. First, it clarifies that affidavits of desistance do not automatically terminate disbarment proceedings, as the public interest requires a thorough investigation of alleged misconduct. Second, it emphasizes the strict adherence to notarial rules, particularly the requirement of personal appearance. Finally, it highlights the importance of responsible conduct by attorneys in initiating disciplinary actions against their peers.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Yumul-Espina violated the Notarial Law by notarizing an affidavit without the affiant’s personal appearance, and whether Atty. Tabaquero violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by allegedly attempting to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on foreign land ownership.
    Why did the Supreme Court reverse the IBP’s decision? The Supreme Court reversed the IBP’s decision because disbarment proceedings are sui generis and imbued with public interest, and therefore, cannot be terminated solely based on the whims of the parties involved through affidavits of desistance. The Court deemed it necessary to evaluate the merits of the complaint and counter-complaint.
    What evidence was presented against Atty. Yumul-Espina? Evidence presented against Atty. Yumul-Espina included Derek Atkinson’s passport entries and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration, which indicated that he was not in the Philippines on the date the Affidavit of Waiver was notarized.
    What are the penalties for violating the Notarial Law? The penalties for violating the Notarial Law, as imposed in this case, include suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a specified period.
    Did the Court find Atty. Tabaquero guilty of any wrongdoing? No, the Court found Atty. Tabaquero not guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court reasoned that the criminal cases he filed did not seek to transfer land ownership to a foreigner.
    Are administrative cases against lawyers related to civil or criminal cases? No, administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from civil and criminal cases, and can proceed independently. The outcome of the administrative case does not directly impact the pending civil or criminal cases involving the parties.
    What is the significance of personal appearance in notarization? Personal appearance is a critical requirement in notarization to ensure the identity of the signatory and the authenticity of the document. It prevents fraud and ensures that the document is executed voluntarily.
    What is the Court’s reminder to lawyers filing disbarment complaints? The Court reminded lawyers to exercise caution and ensure that disbarment complaints are not motivated by retaliation, mistake, or misapprehension of facts, as such complaints can waste valuable time and resources.

    This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding ethical standards within the legal profession. The suspension of Atty. Yumul-Espina serves as a cautionary tale for notaries public, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with notarial rules and regulations. It also highlights the need for responsible conduct in filing disbarment complaints, ensuring that such actions are based on genuine misconduct rather than personal motives.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA vs. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO, A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016

  • Breach of Notarial Duty: Upholding Integrity in Legal Practice

    The Supreme Court in Gina E. Endaya v. Atty. Edgardo O. Palay held that a lawyer’s duties as a notary public are intrinsically linked to the practice of law and violations of notarial rules warrant disciplinary action. The Court found Atty. Palay guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing a document without the presence of the signatory and for dishonesty. This ruling reinforces the high standards of honesty and diligence required of lawyers, especially when performing notarial acts, and underscores the serious consequences of failing to uphold these standards.

    When a Thumbprint Betrays: The Ethical Collapse of a Notary Public

    The case revolves around a complaint filed by Gina E. Endaya against Atty. Edgardo O. Palay, a notary public, for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Sale in 2004 under suspicious circumstances. Endaya claimed that her father, Engr. Atilano AB. Villaos, could not have appeared before Atty. Palay to affix his thumbmark on the deed because he was confined at the Philippine Heart Center during that time. Furthermore, she alleged that her father was not of sound mind and therefore incapable of understanding the implications of the sale. The central legal question is whether Atty. Palay violated the ethical standards of the legal profession and the rules governing notarial practice, warranting disciplinary action.

    The facts presented a compelling narrative of alleged misconduct. According to the records, Atty. Palay notarized the Deed of Sale covering eight parcels of land on July 27, 2004. Endaya asserted that her father was hospitalized in Quezon City from May 27 to August 17, 2004, making it impossible for him to be in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, where Atty. Palay’s office was located. The affidavit of Dr. Bella L. Fernandez further supported Endaya’s claim, stating that Villaos was not of sound mind during that period. In response, Atty. Palay claimed that Villaos’ driver approached him and requested that he meet Villaos in his car, where Villaos purportedly pleaded to be allowed to affix his thumbmark due to his failing health. However, Endaya countered with an affidavit from Dr. Carlos Tan, stating that Villaos was receiving intravenous fluids and breathing through an oxygen mask around the time of the alleged notarization. Villaos’ driver, Arnel Villafuerte, also denied approaching Atty. Palay for notarial services.

    The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Palay guilty of failing to faithfully discharge his duties as a notary public. This led to a recommendation that he be suspended from the practice of law for three months and permanently disqualified from serving as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation, increasing the suspension period to one year. Atty. Palay’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied, leading him to file a second motion, which the Supreme Court treated as a petition for review. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty.

    The Court emphasized the intrinsic link between the duties of a notary public and the practice of law. According to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing are eligible to be commissioned as notaries public. Therefore, performing notarial functions constitutes the practice of law. Atty. Palay did not dispute the IBP’s finding that he notarized the document without the presence of Villaos, which is a clear violation of Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This rule explicitly states:

    “A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document — (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”

    By acknowledging the Deed of Sale, Atty. Palay falsely represented that Villaos personally appeared before him. Further, the Court noted that Atty. Palay lied about being called into a car by Villaos’ driver. The Court stated that these actions demonstrate dishonesty, which violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Court thus reasoned that Atty. Palay’s actions reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession.

    In its decision, the Supreme Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, reducing the suspension from the practice of law to six months but maintaining the disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, albeit for a period of two years instead of permanent disqualification. This decision underscores the importance of honesty and adherence to the rules governing notarial practice. It serves as a reminder that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct, especially when performing notarial acts, as these acts carry significant legal weight and impact the rights and obligations of individuals.

    Moreover, the Court addressed the conduct of Atty. Paul Resurreccion, counsel for the complainant, who failed to comply with the Court’s directives to file a comment on Atty. Palay’s second motion for reconsideration. Despite being fined previously, Atty. Resurreccion continued to disregard the Court’s orders. The Court deemed this act as indirect contempt, punishable under the Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 3, par. (b), and imposed an additional fine of P5,000.00. This demonstrates the Court’s commitment to enforcing its orders and maintaining the integrity of the legal process. The Court warned Atty. Resurreccion that any repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Palay violated the ethical standards of the legal profession and the rules governing notarial practice by notarizing a document under suspicious circumstances. The Court had to determine if his actions warranted disciplinary action.
    What did Atty. Palay allegedly do wrong? Atty. Palay allegedly notarized a Deed of Sale without the presence of Engr. Atilano AB. Villaos, the person who purportedly affixed his thumbmark on the deed. He also allegedly misrepresented the circumstances under which the notarization took place.
    What is the significance of being a notary public? A notary public is authorized to perform certain legal formalities, including administering oaths and affirmations, taking affidavits and statutory declarations, witnessing and authenticating documents, and performing certain other acts. Their role is crucial in ensuring the integrity and authenticity of legal documents.
    What is indirect contempt of court? Indirect contempt involves disobeying a court order or obstructing the administration of justice outside the immediate presence of the court. In this case, Atty. Resurreccion was found guilty of indirect contempt for repeatedly failing to comply with the Court’s directives.
    What rule did Atty. Palay violate? Atty. Palay violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present. He also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court found Atty. Palay guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
    What was the punishment for Atty. Resurreccion? Atty. Paul Resurreccion was found guilty of indirect contempt and ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00. He was also sternly warned against repeating similar offenses in the future.
    Why did the Supreme Court modify the IBP’s decision? The Supreme Court, while agreeing with the IBP’s findings, modified the penalty imposed on Atty. Palay. The Court reduced the suspension period to six months, finding that this was a more appropriate penalty given the specific circumstances of the case.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Endaya v. Palay serves as a significant reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, particularly when acting as notaries public. The ruling underscores the importance of honesty, diligence, and adherence to the rules governing notarial practice, reinforcing the principle that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of conduct in all aspects of their professional lives. This case also demonstrates the Court’s commitment to enforcing its orders and maintaining the integrity of the legal process, as evidenced by the sanctions imposed on Atty. Resurreccion for his failure to comply with court directives.

    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: GINA E. ENDAYA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDGARDO O. PALAY, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 10150, September 21, 2016