ASG Law

Tag: Legal Ethics

  • Upholding Client Trust: Attorney Suspended for Neglect and Unethical Fee Demands

    In Balingit v. Cervantes, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a case involving legal malpractice and unethical conduct by attorneys. The Court held that lawyers must uphold their duties of competence, diligence, and loyalty to their clients. The decision underscores the importance of trust in the attorney-client relationship, emphasizing that attorneys must prioritize their clients’ interests and avoid conflicts of interest. This ruling serves as a stern reminder of the ethical responsibilities lawyers carry and the consequences of neglecting those duties.

    When Trust is Broken: Examining Attorney Misconduct and Client Rights

    The case arose from a complaint filed by Jose Antonio F. Balingit against Attys. Renato M. Cervantes and Teodoro B. Delarmente. Balingit, a naturalized British citizen, sought the respondents’ legal services following a tragic accident involving his sons. The attorneys were engaged to file a civil suit for damages and an administrative case against the individual responsible for the accident. Despite receiving partial payment for acceptance and filing fees, the attorneys failed to file the agreed-upon civil suit. This inaction, coupled with subsequent demands for unwarranted attorney’s fees and the filing of criminal and deportation cases against the client, led to the administrative complaint.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the core ethical principles that govern the conduct of lawyers, stating that:

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

    CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his profession.

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

    CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

    CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

    The Court found that the respondents had clearly violated these canons. Their failure to file the civil suit despite receiving payment and necessary documents was a direct breach of their duty to serve their client with competence and diligence. The Court stated:

    We have repeatedly held that when a lawyer accepts a case, he undertakes to give his utmost attention, skill, and competence to it. His client has the right to expect that he will discharge his duties diligently and exert his best efforts, learning, and ability to prosecute or defend his client’s cause with reasonable dispatch.

    Furthermore, the Court condemned Atty. Cervantes’ demand for additional fees related to the criminal case settlement, which was outside the scope of their original agreement. The Court highlighted the impropriety of imposing additional fees not previously agreed upon, citing Miranda v. Carpio. Even assuming entitlement to additional fees, the Court found the respondents’ method of enforcing payment, through criminal and deportation cases, to be unacceptable. The Court referenced Rule 20.4 of the CPR, which advises lawyers to avoid fee disputes with clients and resort to judicial action only to prevent injustice or fraud. This approach contrasts sharply with the respondents’ actions, which were deemed to be coercive and intended to harass the client.

    The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a harmonious relationship between lawyers and clients, especially concerning compensation. It stated that suits to collect fees should be avoided and only filed when necessary. The Court referenced Malvar v. Kraft Food Philippines, Inc., where the filing of a motion for intervention was approved to protect a counsel’s right to fees. Alternatively, an independent civil action could be filed. However, the respondents’ decision to file criminal and deportation cases was viewed as a gross violation of ethical standards, akin to the conduct in Retuya v. Gorduiz, where a lawyer was suspended for filing a groundless estafa case against his client.

    The Court acknowledged that while filing multiple cases is not inherently unethical, as stated in Alcantara v. De Vera, the key is the lawyer’s good faith and lack of ill-motive. In this instance, the Court concluded that the estafa and deportation proceedings were intended to harass the client and force compliance with the fee demands. Consequently, the Court deemed a suspension from the practice of law as the appropriate penalty. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors reduced to three months without adequate explanation. The Supreme Court criticized this unexplained change and reinstated the original six-month suspension.

    Addressing the issue of the filing fees, the Court cited Anacta v. Resurreccion, emphasizing that matters pertaining to a lawyer’s moral fitness fall within the Court’s disciplinary authority. The Court reiterated the principle that lawyers must return money received for a specific purpose if that purpose is not fulfilled, referencing Small v. Banares. As the respondents failed to file the civil action despite receiving P45,000.00 for that purpose, they were ordered to return the amount to the complainant.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the attorneys violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file a lawsuit after receiving payment and by demanding unwarranted fees, ultimately leading to the filing of criminal and deportation cases against their client.
    What specific ethical duties did the attorneys violate? The attorneys violated their duties of competence, diligence, and loyalty to their client, as well as the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and to handle client funds properly.
    Why were the attorneys suspended from practicing law? The attorneys were suspended due to their failure to file the agreed-upon civil suit, their demand for additional fees outside the scope of their engagement, and their use of criminal and deportation proceedings to pressure the client.
    What is the significance of Canon 15, 16, 17, and 18 in this case? These canons outline the core ethical obligations of lawyers, including candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity, competence, and diligence, all of which the attorneys failed to uphold in their dealings with the client.
    What was the Court’s view on the attorney’s demand for additional fees? The Court viewed the demand for additional fees as highly improper, especially since it was not part of the original agreement and related to a criminal case settlement outside the scope of their engagement.
    What alternatives did the Court suggest for resolving fee disputes? The Court suggested resolving fee disputes through judicial action as an incident of the main action or through an independent civil action, rather than resorting to coercive tactics like filing criminal cases.
    Why did the Court reinstate the original six-month suspension? The Court reinstated the original six-month suspension because the IBP Board of Governors reduced the penalty to three months without providing adequate justification for the change.
    What was the basis for ordering the attorneys to return the P45,000.00 to the client? The attorneys were ordered to return the money because they received it to file a civil action, which they failed to do, thus violating their duty to use client funds for the intended purpose.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Balingit v. Cervantes serves as a critical reminder to attorneys of their ethical obligations and the importance of maintaining client trust. By suspending the attorneys and ordering the return of the unearned fees, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and protecting the rights of clients.

    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: JOSE ANTONIO F. BALINGIT VS. ATTY. RENATO M. CERVANTES AND ATTY. TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, A.C. No. 11059, November 09, 2016

  • Attorney-Client Conflict: Business Deal or Breach of Duty?

    The Supreme Court in Zalamea vs. De Guzman ruled that a lawyer did not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility when his wife purchased property from a bank that was previously owned by his client’s related company. The Court emphasized that the property was not subject to any litigation handled by the lawyer, and the transaction arose from a business relationship, not a lawyer-client one. This decision clarifies the limitations of the prohibition against lawyers acquiring client property, particularly when the transaction is separate from any legal engagement and based on fair business dealings.

    Reacquiring Foreclosed Property: When Does Counsel Cross the Line?

    The case revolves around Manuel and Manuel Jose Zalamea who sought legal advice from Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr., regarding their mother’s estate and later, assistance in reacquiring foreclosed property. The Speaker Perez property was previously owned by Elarfoods, Inc., a corporation run by the Zalamea brothers’ aunts and uncles, and had been foreclosed by Banco de Oro (BDO). The Zalameas then claimed that De Guzman, as their counsel, could not acquire the property, either personally or through his wife, without violating his ethical duties. This led to a disbarment case against De Guzman, alleging a breach of professional ethics for purchasing a client’s property.

    At the heart of the disbarment case was Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase their client’s property and rights in litigation. The petitioners argued that Atty. De Guzman’s actions, specifically his wife’s purchase of the Speaker Perez property, violated this provision and the ethical duties it embodies. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the importance of context and the specific nature of the relationship between the parties involved. The Court underscored that not all transactions between a lawyer and a client constitute a breach of professional ethics, particularly when the transaction is separate from any legal engagement and based on fair business dealings.

    The Supreme Court highlighted that the prohibition under Article 1491 is not absolute and applies specifically to properties involved in litigation handled by the lawyer. In this case, the Speaker Perez property was not subject to any litigation in which Atty. De Guzman had represented the Zalameas. While Atty. De Guzman had previously advised the Zalameas on matters related to their mother’s estate, this did not extend to the Speaker Perez property or any related legal disputes. This distinction is crucial in understanding the scope of the prohibition and its application in specific circumstances.

    Moreover, the Court emphasized the nature of the relationship between the Zalameas and the De Guzman spouses. Rather than a typical lawyer-client dynamic, their association evolved into a business partnership. The Zalameas approached the De Guzmans seeking financial assistance to reacquire the foreclosed property, leading to an agreement where the De Guzmans would provide the necessary funds. This arrangement shifted the dynamic from a purely professional one to a collaborative business venture, altering the ethical considerations involved. The Court recognized that individuals are not barred from entering into business transactions with their lawyers, provided that such transactions are conducted fairly and without undue influence.

    The Court cited Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that “a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process.” Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, while Canon 16 provides that “a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” The Court emphasized that these canons underscore the role of a lawyer as a guardian of the legal system, and any violation of these principles would be met with serious consequences. However, in this case, the Court found no evidence of any breach of these ethical obligations.

    The decision underscores that the prohibition on lawyers acquiring client property is rooted in considerations of public policy and aims to prevent undue influence. The Court reasoned that Atty. De Guzman could not have exerted any undue influence over the Zalameas. It was Manuel Enrique who approached the Spouses De Guzman and asked them if they would be willing to become business partners in a lechon business. It was also Manuel Enrique who turned to De Guzman for help in order to reacquire the already foreclosed Speaker Perez property. They had agreed that De Guzman would simply pay the required downpayment to BDO and EMZEE would pay the remaining balance in installment. And when EMZEE continued suffering losses, Angel took care of the monthly amortizations so as not to lose the property.

    In essence, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zalamea vs. De Guzman clarifies the boundaries of ethical conduct for lawyers in business dealings with clients. The decision provides a framework for assessing such transactions, emphasizing the importance of context, the nature of the relationship, and the absence of undue influence. By distinguishing between a lawyer-client relationship and a business partnership, the Court has provided valuable guidance for lawyers navigating potential conflicts of interest and ensuring compliance with ethical obligations.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. De Guzman violated ethical rules by acquiring, through his wife, a property previously owned by a corporation related to his clients, the Zalamea brothers. The petitioners claimed it was a breach of professional ethics, while the respondent argued it was a legitimate business transaction.
    What is Article 1491 of the Civil Code? Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits lawyers from purchasing, even at a public auction, property and rights involved in litigation they are participating in due to their profession. This aims to prevent lawyers from using their position to unfairly acquire assets from their clients.
    Did Atty. De Guzman directly purchase the property? No, the property was purchased by Atty. De Guzman’s wife, Angel. However, the petitioners argued that this was essentially the same as Atty. De Guzman purchasing the property himself, given their marital relationship.
    Was the Speaker Perez property involved in any litigation handled by Atty. De Guzman? No, the Court emphasized that the Speaker Perez property was not subject to any litigation in which Atty. De Guzman had represented the Zalameas. This was a crucial factor in the Court’s decision.
    What was the nature of the relationship between the Zalameas and the De Guzmans? Initially, the relationship was that of lawyer-client. However, it evolved into a business partnership when the Zalameas sought financial assistance from the De Guzmans to reacquire the foreclosed property.
    How did the Court view the business partnership aspect of the relationship? The Court viewed the business partnership as a significant factor, indicating that the transaction was not solely based on a lawyer-client relationship. This implied that the ethical constraints were less stringent than in a purely professional context.
    What is the main principle derived from this case? The main principle is that the prohibition on lawyers acquiring client property is not absolute. It applies specifically to properties involved in litigation handled by the lawyer and does not extend to fair business dealings where no undue influence is exerted.
    What ethical duties are lawyers expected to uphold? Lawyers are expected to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for the legal process. They must also maintain fidelity to their client’s cause, hold client’s properties in trust, and avoid conflicts of interest.

    This case highlights the complexities that can arise when lawyers and clients engage in business transactions. While ethical rules are designed to protect clients from potential abuse, they should not unduly restrict legitimate business opportunities. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zalamea vs. De Guzman offers valuable guidance on how to navigate these situations, emphasizing the importance of transparency, fairness, and the absence of undue influence.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, ET AL. VS. ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR., A.C. No. 7387, November 07, 2016

  • Conflict of Interest: When Prior Judicial Roles Limit Future Legal Practice

    The Supreme Court held that a retired judge violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing a party in a case he previously presided over. Atty. Felipe G. Zapatos, despite his retirement, was found to have acted unethically by taking on a case where he had previously intervened in his judicial capacity. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest, even after leaving public service, to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. The ruling reinforces the principle that former judges must not exploit their past positions for personal gain or to the detriment of the justice system.

    From the Bench to the Bar: Ethical Boundaries for Former Judges

    The case of Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok v. Atty. Felipe G. Zapatos revolves around the ethical constraints placed on former judges when they transition to private legal practice. The central question is whether a retired judge can ethically represent a client in a case over which he previously presided. This situation raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the exploitation of prior judicial knowledge and influence. The complainant, Atty. Pasok, argued that Atty. Zapatos’s actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the rule against representing adverse interests.

    The factual background is critical to understanding the ethical dilemma. Atty. Zapatos, a retired judge, had previously presided over a case in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) before his appointment to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After retirement, he appeared as counsel for the opposing party in the same case, which had been appealed. Atty. Pasok, the original counsel, contended that this representation was a clear violation of legal ethics. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Zapatos guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states:

    “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.”

    This rule aims to prevent former government lawyers, including judges, from using their prior positions to gain an unfair advantage in subsequent legal engagements. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the term “any matter” is broad and encompasses any subject the lawyer acted upon in their official capacity. This prohibition extends to any involvement that could be perceived as influencing the outcome of a case.

    The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession. By presiding over the initial case, Atty. Zapatos had indeed “intervened” in the matter. The court clarified that the degree or length of intervention is irrelevant; any prior involvement triggers the prohibition. This interpretation aligns with Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which served as the basis for Rule 6.03. Canon 36 states that a lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter upon the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. This ethical guideline is rooted in the principle of impartiality and fairness.

    The Court cited Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan to reinforce the link between Rule 6.03 and Canon 36, highlighting the continuous ethical obligation of lawyers who have served in public office. The restriction applies regardless of whether the lawyer is retired or has transitioned to private practice. Moreover, it extends beyond the lawyer’s tenure in public service, ensuring that former officials do not exploit their positions for personal gain. This prevents the appearance of impropriety and maintains public trust in the legal system.

    Atty. Zapatos argued that his dire financial situation justified his actions. However, the Court rejected this defense, stating that economic hardship does not excuse unethical behavior. The Court acknowledged his plight but emphasized that there are other ethical ways to earn a living, such as providing legal services in matters where he did not have prior judicial involvement. The Court underscored that maintaining ethical integrity is paramount, even in challenging circumstances.

    In its ruling, the Supreme Court found Atty. Zapatos guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for one month. The Court also issued a warning that any similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This penalty serves as a deterrent to other former judges and government lawyers who might consider exploiting their previous positions for personal gain. The decision reinforces the importance of upholding ethical standards to protect the integrity of the legal profession.

    The practical implications of this decision are significant. Former judges and government lawyers must be acutely aware of the ethical constraints placed upon them when transitioning to private practice. They must carefully evaluate any potential conflicts of interest and avoid representing clients in matters where they previously had official involvement. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment. This ruling serves as a clear reminder that the ethical obligations of lawyers extend beyond their tenure in public service.

    The case illustrates the delicate balance between a lawyer’s right to earn a living and the ethical duty to avoid conflicts of interest. While financial hardship is a legitimate concern, it does not justify compromising ethical principles. Lawyers, especially those who have served in public office, must prioritize integrity and avoid any actions that could undermine public trust in the legal system. The Supreme Court’s decision sends a strong message that ethical violations will not be tolerated, regardless of the circumstances.

    This ruling also underscores the importance of transparency and full disclosure. When faced with a potential conflict of interest, lawyers should proactively disclose the situation to all parties involved and seek guidance from ethical experts. Open communication can help mitigate potential conflicts and ensure that all parties are aware of any prior involvement. By prioritizing transparency and ethical conduct, lawyers can maintain their integrity and uphold the standards of the legal profession.

    In conclusion, the case of Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok v. Atty. Felipe G. Zapatos serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical obligations of former judges and government lawyers. The decision reinforces the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and upholding the integrity of the legal profession. By adhering to these principles, lawyers can maintain public trust and ensure that the justice system operates fairly and impartially.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a retired judge violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing a party in a case he had previously presided over. This raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the exploitation of prior judicial knowledge.
    What is Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Rule 6.03 prohibits lawyers, after leaving government service, from accepting employment in connection with any matter in which they had intervened while in said service. This rule aims to prevent the exploitation of prior government positions for personal gain.
    Why did the IBP find Atty. Zapatos guilty? The IBP found Atty. Zapatos guilty because he represented a client in a case he had previously presided over as a judge. This was deemed a violation of Rule 6.03, as his prior involvement constituted intervention in the matter.
    What was Atty. Zapatos’s defense? Atty. Zapatos argued that his dire financial situation justified his actions, as he needed income to survive. However, the Court rejected this defense, stating that economic hardship does not excuse unethical behavior.
    What penalty did Atty. Zapatos receive? Atty. Zapatos was suspended from the practice of law for one month. The Court also warned that any similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
    What is the significance of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics? Canon 36, the basis for Rule 6.03, states that a lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter upon the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. It underscores the importance of impartiality and fairness.
    Does Rule 6.03 apply to all government lawyers? Yes, Rule 6.03 applies to all lawyers who have served in government service, including judges. The restriction extends beyond their tenure, preventing them from exploiting their positions for personal gain.
    What should lawyers do if they face a potential conflict of interest? Lawyers should proactively disclose the situation to all parties involved and seek guidance from ethical experts. Transparency and full disclosure can help mitigate potential conflicts and ensure ethical conduct.

    In summary, this case underscores the legal profession’s commitment to ethics and impartiality. The ruling serves as a guide for lawyers transitioning from government service to private practice, highlighting the need to avoid conflicts of interest and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok v. Atty. Felipe G. Zapatos, A.C. No. 7388, October 19, 2016

  • Upholding Ethical Conduct: Attorney Suspension for Falsification and Dishonesty

    In Natanauan v. Tolentino, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the serious issue of an attorney’s misconduct involving falsification and dishonesty. The Court found Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, he was suspended from the practice of law for three years. This case underscores the high ethical standards required of legal professionals and the grave consequences of engaging in deceitful practices that undermine the integrity of the legal system, emphasizing that the practice of law is a privilege contingent upon maintaining honesty and moral character.

    Deceit and Disregard: When an Attorney’s Actions Betray the Legal Profession

    The case arose from a disbarment complaint filed by Dolores Natanauan against Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, accusing him of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. The core of the complaint revolved around allegations of falsification of documents related to a land transaction. Dolores claimed that Atty. Tolentino, through various fraudulent schemes, manipulated land titles and deeds to benefit himself and his associates, demonstrating a clear breach of his duties as a lawyer.

    The factual backdrop involves a parcel of land co-owned by Dolores Natanauan and her siblings. They initially sold the land to Alejo Tolentino, Atty. Tolentino’s brother, in 1978. However, subsequent events revealed a series of questionable transactions. Dolores discovered deeds of sale purportedly signed by her deceased father and other individuals, transferring the property to Alejo Tolentino based on falsified documents. Further investigation revealed a deed of sale between Dolores and her siblings and Atty. Tolentino, raising suspicions of collusion and deceitful intent.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to practice law is a privilege, not a right, bestowed by the State upon those who demonstrate worthiness. As such, the Court has a disciplinary power over members of the Bar to maintain high standards of competence, honesty, and fair dealing. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court outlines grounds for suspension or disbarment, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the lawyer’s oath.

    The Court referenced several key provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Canon 1, which mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land; Canon 7, which requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession; and Canon 10, which emphasizes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. These canons collectively underscore the ethical responsibilities of lawyers to act with honesty, integrity, and respect for the legal system.

    Regarding the procedural aspect, Atty. Tolentino argued that he was denied due process because he was not given an opportunity to be heard. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing, noting that Atty. Tolentino had filed a Comment through his counsel and subsequent motions for reconsideration. Citing Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, the Court reiterated that filing a motion for reconsideration cures any defect in the observance of due process. The Court also stated that, “The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, hence, denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one’s day in court.”

    The Court found sufficient evidence to support the charges of falsification against Atty. Tolentino. Dolores Natanauan’s testimony and documentary evidence demonstrated a pattern of fraudulent activities. The Court found Atty. Tolentino’s direct participation in the falsification, noting his involvement in the subject contract and the use of his brother as a dummy. The Court also highlighted the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, which Atty. Tolentino himself presented in the case of Banco De Oro v. Bayuga, further implicating him in the fraudulent transactions. As the Court stated, “the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 presented by Atty. Tolentino therein is the very same Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 which gave rise to the present disbarment case.”

    Building on this principle, the Court applied the rule that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and using a forged document is presumed to be the forger. As stated in Pacasum v. People, “In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who has used, a forged document, is the forger and, therefore, guilty of falsification.” This presumption created a burden on Atty. Tolentino to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case of falsification.

    The Court found Atty. Tolentino’s dishonesty further compounded by his denial of association with the notary public, Perfecto. This was contradicted by the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale, which bore Perfecto’s notarial seal. His lack of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court was another factor in the Court’s decision. As the Court stated in Silva Vda. de Fajardo v. Bugaring, “Complete candor or honesty is expected from lawyers, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes x x x. With his armada of legal knowledge and skills, respondent clearly enjoyed the upper hand.”

    Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Tolentino violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts of dishonesty demonstrated a failure to uphold the high moral standards of the legal profession. Consequently, the Court affirmed the IBP Board’s recommendation to suspend him from the practice of law for three years.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Tolentino committed deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct through falsification, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, thus meriting suspension from the legal profession.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court found Atty. Tolentino guilty and suspended him from the practice of law for three years, citing violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    What evidence supported the charges against Atty. Tolentino? Evidence included falsified documents, Dolores Natanauan’s testimony, and the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, which Atty. Tolentino himself had presented in a previous case, all indicating his involvement in fraudulent transactions.
    What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath in this case? The Lawyer’s Oath is a covenant every lawyer undertakes, and Atty. Tolentino’s actions were found to have violated this oath, which requires lawyers to uphold the laws and not engage in falsehood.
    How did the Court address Atty. Tolentino’s claim of denial of due process? The Court rejected his claim, noting that he had filed a Comment and subsequent motions, thus curing any procedural defects. The right to be heard was not denied, as he had ample opportunity to present his case.
    What is the rule regarding possession of forged documents? The Court applied the rule that one found in possession of and using a forged document, without a satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger. This presumption created a burden on Atty. Tolentino to disprove his involvement.
    What ethical duties did Atty. Tolentino violate? Atty. Tolentino violated Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and act with candor and fairness to the court.
    What is the purpose of disbarment or suspension in cases of attorney misconduct? The purpose is not merely to punish the attorney but to protect the courts and the public from those unfit to be part of the legal profession, ensuring that only those with the highest standards of competence and honesty are allowed to practice law.

    This case highlights the importance of ethical conduct for lawyers and the serious consequences of engaging in fraudulent or dishonest behavior. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the practice of law is a privilege that must be earned and maintained through adherence to the highest standards of integrity and professionalism.

    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: Dolores Natanauan v. Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, A.C. No. 4269, October 11, 2016

  • Upholding Lawyer Accountability: Disbarment for Falsification and Breach of Professional Ethics

    In Natanauan v. Tolentino, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino for three years, finding him guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found substantial evidence of Atty. Tolentino’s involvement in the falsification of documents related to a land sale, demonstrating a lack of honesty and integrity expected of a member of the Bar. This case underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers.

    Deceptive Deeds: Can a Lawyer Be Held Accountable for Falsifying Property Transactions?

    This case revolves around a disbarment complaint filed by Dolores Natanauan against Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, accusing him of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. The dispute stems from a land transaction in Tagaytay City, where Dolores and her siblings sold a parcel of land to Alejo Tolentino, Atty. Tolentino’s brother. The problems began when it became clear that the title transfer involved falsified documents and a series of questionable transactions that ultimately benefitted Atty. Tolentino and his corporation, Buck Estate, Inc. The core legal question is whether Atty. Tolentino’s actions constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

    Dolores presented evidence indicating that Atty. Tolentino orchestrated the falsification of a Deed of Sale and a Joint Affidavit to facilitate the transfer of the land. The falsified Deed of Sale, dated August 3, 1979, purportedly showed Dolores’s deceased father, Jose Natanauan, and others selling the property, which was impossible since Jose had passed away in 1977. A Joint Affidavit dated August 6, 1979, also bore Jose’s forged signature. Adding to the complexity, another Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, surfaced, showing Atty. Tolentino as the buyer of the same property. This document was notarized by Perfecto P. Fernandez, who was later found not to be a commissioned notary public.

    These discoveries led Dolores to believe that Atty. Tolentino was engaging in fraudulent activities to acquire the land for himself. Further investigation revealed that the property was registered under the name of Buck Estate, Inc., where Atty. Tolentino was a stockholder, and subsequently mortgaged to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. An Affidavit dated December 2, 1980, signed by Alejo and Filomena Tolentino, attested that the property truly belonged to Atty. Tolentino, which he conformed to. These pieces of evidence painted a picture of deceit and manipulation, prompting Dolores to file the disbarment complaint against Atty. Tolentino and Perfecto.

    The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case and found Atty. Tolentino liable for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Commissioner noted several circumstances pointing to Atty. Tolentino’s complicity in the falsifications, including his direct involvement in the contract with Dolores, using his brother as a dummy. The subsequent transfer of the land to Buck Estate, Inc., of which he was a stockholder, further implicated him in the fraudulent scheme. Crucially, Atty. Tolentino’s failure to appear before the IBP-CBD during the investigation was also considered a ground for disciplinary action.

    The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s Report, increasing the recommended penalty from a six-month suspension to three years. Atty. Tolentino filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. He then claimed that he was denied due process because he did not receive notices or an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that Atty. Tolentino was given ample opportunity to present his case. The Court emphasized that the filing of a Comment and subsequent Motions for Reconsideration cured any procedural defects.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s decision, emphasizing the high standards of honesty and integrity expected of lawyers. The Court underscored that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and is extended only to those who are worthy and deserving. Lawyers must uphold the Lawyer’s Oath and canons of ethical conduct in both their professional and private capacities. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court specifies the grounds for suspension or disbarment, including deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

    In its analysis, the Supreme Court found that Dolores sufficiently proved the charges of falsification against Atty. Tolentino. Despite initially claiming that the property was sold to Alejo and Filomena, Dolores later disclosed that Atty. Tolentino was the actual purchaser. The Court highlighted the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, which Atty. Tolentino himself presented in a previous case, Banco De Oro v. Bayuga. This document directly linked him to the land transaction and contradicted his claims of non-involvement. The Court applied the principle that one found in possession and use of a forged document, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger.

    Furthermore, the Court found Atty. Tolentino’s denial of his association with Notary Public Perfecto to be dishonest. The March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale was notarized by Perfecto, contradicting Atty. Tolentino’s claim that he did not know or deal with him. This lack of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court was deemed a serious breach of ethical conduct. The Supreme Court cited Silva Vda. de Fajardo v. Bugaring, emphasizing the expectation of complete candor and honesty from lawyers, especially when pleading their own causes.

    The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Tolentino’s actions constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His deliberate non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal process and sullied the integrity of the legal profession. Therefore, the Court suspended Atty. Tolentino from the practice of law for three years, sending a clear message about the importance of ethical conduct and accountability within the legal profession.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Tolentino’s involvement in falsifying documents related to a land sale constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action. The Supreme Court had to determine if the evidence presented by the complainant, Dolores Natanauan, was sufficient to prove the charges against Atty. Tolentino.
    What specific violations was Atty. Tolentino found guilty of? Atty. Tolentino was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These violations stemmed from his involvement in the falsification of documents, lack of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court, and failure to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
    What was the significance of the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979? The Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, was significant because Atty. Tolentino himself presented it in a previous case, Banco De Oro v. Bayuga. This document directly linked him to the land transaction and contradicted his claims of non-involvement in the fraudulent activities.
    How did the Court address Atty. Tolentino’s claim of denial of due process? The Court rejected Atty. Tolentino’s claim of denial of due process, stating that he was given ample opportunity to present his case. The filing of a Comment and subsequent Motions for Reconsideration cured any procedural defects that may have existed.
    What is the principle regarding possession and use of forged documents? The Court applied the principle that one found in possession and use of a forged document, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger. This principle placed the burden on Atty. Tolentino to provide a credible explanation for his involvement with the falsified documents.
    What was the IBP’s role in this case? The IBP investigated the case, found Atty. Tolentino liable for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended a penalty. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s Report and increased the recommended penalty from a six-month suspension to three years.
    Why was Atty. Tolentino’s non-participation in the IBP proceedings considered a violation? Atty. Tolentino’s deliberate non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings was considered a violation because it demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal process and sullied the integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and uphold the standards of the Bar.
    What is the primary purpose of disbarment proceedings? The primary purpose of disbarment proceedings is to protect the courts and the public from members of the Bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession. It is not meant as a punishment to deprive a lawyer of a means of livelihood, but rather to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
    What are the ethical obligations of lawyers regarding candor and honesty? Lawyers have an ethical obligation to maintain complete candor and honesty, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes. They are expected to be disciples of truth and must not make a travesty of the truth or mangle the ends of justice.

    Natanauan v. Tolentino reinforces the high ethical standards expected of legal professionals in the Philippines. This decision serves as a reminder that lawyers must uphold the law, maintain honesty, and respect legal processes. Failure to adhere to these standards can result in severe disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law, to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: DOLORES NATANAUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 62375, October 11, 2016

  • Upholding Respect for Court Orders: An Attorney’s Duty and the Consequences of Disregard

    In Datu Budencio E. Dumanlag v. Atty. Winston B. Intong, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, particularly their duty to respect and comply with court orders. While the Court dismissed the complainant’s allegations of gross misconduct and negligence against the respondent lawyer, it found the lawyer culpable for repeatedly ignoring directives from the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). This decision underscores that while lawyers enjoy a presumption of innocence in disciplinary proceedings, they must adhere to the ethical standards of the profession, including respecting and obeying court orders.

    Datu vs. Atty: When a Letter Sparks a Legal Battle and Tests the Bounds of Professional Conduct

    The case originated from a complaint filed by Datu Budencio E. Dumanlag against Atty. Winston B. Intong, triggered by a letter the lawyer sent to Datu Dumanlag requesting his presence at a pre-litigation conference. Datu Dumanlag perceived the letter as an attempt to intimidate and coerce him, further claiming that the lawyer had solicited cases for gain and charged exorbitant notarization fees. However, the heart of the matter shifted when Atty. Intong repeatedly failed to respond to the Supreme Court’s orders to comment on the complaint, as well as to directives from the IBP. This failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the IBP became the focal point of the disciplinary proceedings.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the presumption of innocence that applies to attorneys facing disciplinary charges. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to establish the allegations against the respondent lawyer with clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. In this case, the Court found that Datu Dumanlag failed to substantiate his claims of gross misconduct and negligence against Atty. Intong. The language of the letter, deemed a “mere request” issued in a respectful manner, did not suggest any force or intimidation. Moreover, the claim of exorbitant notarization fees lacked corroborative evidence, rendering it insufficient to establish a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Nonetheless, the Court did not exonerate Atty. Intong entirely.

    The Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of members of the bar, noting that adherence to the CPR is non-negotiable. Canon 11 of the CPR explicitly states that “[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers.” This provision underscores the fundamental duty of lawyers to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. Lawyers are expected to be at the forefront of those who comply with court directives. The Supreme Court emphasized that its orders are not mere requests but directives that should be obeyed promptly and completely. Furthermore, a lawyer’s oath includes a commitment to “obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal authorities,” which Atty. Intong disregarded.

    The Court referenced jurisprudence to support the notion that penalties for failing to comply with orders range from reprimand to disbarment, depending on the gravity of the misconduct. The Supreme Court determined that the IBP’s recommendation to suspend Atty. Intong from the practice of law for six months was too harsh, considering that Atty. Intong eventually filed his mandatory conference brief before the IBP. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that this appeared to be Atty. Intong’s first offense. The Supreme Court referenced Andres v. Nambi, where the lawyer was only reprimanded for a similar infraction. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to reprimand Atty. Intong with a warning that any future misconduct would be dealt with more severely.

    This case serves as a reminder that the legal profession demands not only competence but also a high standard of ethical conduct and respect for the judicial system. By reprimanding Atty. Intong, the Court reaffirmed the principle that lawyers must promptly and fully comply with court orders. It also underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. Furthermore, this case highlights the need for lawyers to remain vigilant in their commitment to ethical conduct and respect for the judicial process.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Intong should be penalized for ignoring the resolutions of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, despite the complainant’s failure to substantiate the charges of gross misconduct and negligence.
    What did the complainant allege against Atty. Intong? The complainant, Datu Budencio E. Dumanlag, alleged that Atty. Intong’s letter was intended to intimidate and coerce him, and that Atty. Intong had solicited cases for purposes of gain and charged exorbitant notarization fees.
    What did the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommend? The IBP initially recommended that Atty. Intong be suspended from the practice of law for six months due to his repeated failure to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP-CBD.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Intong for refusing to obey lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act or offense shall be dealt with more severely.
    Why was Atty. Intong not suspended from the practice of law? The Supreme Court deemed the IBP’s recommendation of suspension too harsh, considering that Atty. Intong eventually filed his mandatory conference brief and that this appeared to be his first infraction.
    What is the significance of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Canon 11 mandates that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers, underscoring the fundamental duty of lawyers to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts.
    What does the lawyer’s oath entail? The lawyer’s oath includes a commitment to “obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal authorities,” which Atty. Intong disregarded by ignoring the Court’s resolutions.
    What factors did the Court consider in determining the appropriate penalty? The Court considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the respondent’s compliance with some directives, and the fact that it was Atty. Intong’s first offense.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Datu Budencio E. Dumanlag v. Atty. Winston B. Intong serves as a stern reminder to all members of the bar about the importance of adhering to the ethical standards of the legal profession and respecting the orders of the Court. While the complainant’s charges were unsubstantiated, the lawyer’s disregard for the directives of the Court and the IBP could not be ignored. The reprimand issued to Atty. Intong emphasizes the principle that lawyers are expected to be at the forefront of those who comply with court directives, and that failure to do so will have consequences.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: DATU BUDENCIO E. DUMANLAG VS. ATTY. WINSTON B. INTONG, A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016

  • Upholding Notarial Duties: Negligence and Misrepresentation in Legal Practice

    In Elizabeth Recio v. Atty. Joselito I. Fandiño, the Supreme Court addressed the professional responsibility of lawyers, particularly concerning notarial duties and misrepresentation. The Court found Atty. Fandiño negligent for failing to secure his notarial paraphernalia and for unauthorized representation of a client, ORASCO. This decision underscores the importance of diligence and integrity in legal practice, emphasizing that lawyers must be vigilant in safeguarding their notarial tools and ensuring proper authorization before representing clients to maintain public trust and prevent potential harm to parties involved.

    When Trust Fails: Examining a Lawyer’s Negligence and Unauthorized Representation

    The case began with a complaint filed by Elizabeth Recio, a bonds manager at Oriental Assurance Corporation (ORASCO), against Atty. Joselito I. Fandiño, seeking his disbarment. Recio alleged that Atty. Fandiño was involved in the notarization of spurious ORASCO bail bonds and misrepresented himself as ORASCO’s counsel without authorization. This situation arose after ORASCO received court orders indicating that their bail bonds had been confiscated, only to discover that these bonds were fake, bearing forged signatures and incorrect office addresses. The irregularities pointed to Atty. Fandiño, whose law office address appeared on the forged documents.

    Atty. Fandiño defended himself by stating that he had delegated his insurance business operations to Jeanette Cruz, who shared his office space and also conducted her own insurance business. He claimed that Cruz, along with Willy Vargas, were responsible for the issuance of the fake ORASCO bonds, and that he had no direct involvement. He admitted to signing pleadings related to the bonds but claimed they were prepared by Cruz based on motions he had previously filed in court regarding bond liability. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Fandiño negligent for not securing his notarial paraphernalia and for appearing in court without ORASCO’s authorization, recommending a six-month suspension.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the duties of a notary public as outlined in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Section 2 of Rule VII states:

    Sec. 2. Official Seal.-

    (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. x x x

    (c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him.

    The Court highlighted Atty. Fandiño’s failure to comply with these rules, noting that he allowed his secretary, Cruz, to have full access to his notarial paraphernalia. This negligence facilitated the notarization of the spurious ORASCO bonds, constituting malpractice. This lack of oversight created an opportunity for fraud and misrepresentation, directly linking Atty. Fandiño’s negligence to the proliferation of the fake bonds.

    Further, the Court addressed Atty. Fandiño’s unauthorized representation of ORASCO. The Court cited Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, which stated:

    It is a settled rule that persons dealing with an agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it. The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make such an inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent’s authority and his ignorance of ‘that authority will not be any excuse.

    Atty. Fandiño’s reliance on Vargas’s representation as ORASCO’s agent without verifying his authority was deemed a breach of his professional duty. The Court emphasized that lawyers must exercise due diligence to ensure they are properly authorized before representing a client. In this case, Atty. Fandiño’s actions not only prejudiced ORASCO but also affected numerous accused individuals whose bail bonds were compromised due to the fraudulent documents. This lack of verification highlighted a significant lapse in his professional conduct.

    The Supreme Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The Court referenced Gonzales v. Ramos, where similar violations of notarial practice resulted in disqualification from reappointment as notary public. This decision underscores the severity with which the Court views breaches of notarial duties and unauthorized representation.

    The ruling serves as a reminder to lawyers of their ethical and professional obligations. Specifically, lawyers have a duty to safeguard their notarial paraphernalia and to diligently verify their authority to represent clients. Failure to do so can lead to severe consequences, including suspension from practice and disqualification from holding a notarial commission. By emphasizing these responsibilities, the Court aims to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and protect the public from potential harm.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Fandiño was negligent in his duties as a notary public and whether he engaged in unauthorized representation. The Court examined his responsibility in securing his notarial paraphernalia and verifying his authority to represent ORASCO.
    What did Atty. Fandiño do wrong? Atty. Fandiño was found negligent for allowing his secretary access to his notarial seal and documents, leading to the notarization of fake bail bonds. He also represented ORASCO in court without proper authorization, relying solely on a third party’s claim of agency.
    What are a notary public’s responsibilities? A notary public must safeguard their official seal and ensure it is only accessible to authorized individuals. They are responsible for verifying the identities of individuals signing documents and ensuring the authenticity of the notarized documents.
    What is unauthorized representation? Unauthorized representation occurs when a lawyer acts on behalf of a client without proper authorization. Lawyers have a duty to verify their authority to represent a client before taking any action on their behalf.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court found Atty. Fandiño guilty of negligence and breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
    What does the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice say about official seals? The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require that every notary public must have an official seal, kept safe and accessible only to the notary public or their duly authorized representative. This is to prevent misuse and unauthorized notarization.
    Why is verifying client representation so important? Verifying client representation is essential to ensure that the lawyer is acting in the best interests of the client and has the legal authority to do so. Failure to verify can lead to legal complications and potential harm to the client.
    What is the significance of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan case? The Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan case emphasizes that individuals dealing with an agent must ascertain the extent of the agent’s authority. This principle was applied to Atty. Fandiño’s situation, highlighting his duty to verify Vargas’s authority to represent ORASCO.

    This case illustrates the high standards of conduct expected of legal professionals, particularly in their roles as notaries public and representatives of clients. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of diligence, integrity, and adherence to the rules governing legal practice. The consequences of negligence and misrepresentation can be severe, impacting not only the lawyer’s career but also the interests of the public they serve.

    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: ELIZABETH RECIO VS. ATTY. JOSELITO I. FANDIÑO, A.C. No. 6767, October 05, 2016

  • Balancing Free Press and Confidentiality: When Attorney Discipline Becomes a Public Matter

    The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that media publication of an attorney’s disciplinary proceedings does not automatically constitute contempt of court. The Court recognized the importance of maintaining confidentiality in attorney disciplinary cases but clarified that this rule is not absolute. When a lawyer’s conduct is connected to a matter of legitimate public interest, the media’s right to report on the disciplinary proceedings is protected under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, provided the reporting is fair, true, and accurate. This decision clarifies the intersection between the confidentiality of legal ethics proceedings and the public’s right to information.

    Confidentiality vs. Public Interest: Did Media Coverage of an Attorney’s Suspension Violate Legal Ethics?

    This case revolves around a petition filed by Atty. Raymund P. Palad to cite Lolit Solis, Salve V. Asis, Al G. Pedroche, and Ricardo F. Lo for indirect contempt. The charge stems from their publication of articles concerning Atty. Palad’s suspension, which was then the subject of a pending administrative case. The pivotal question is whether the respondents violated the confidentiality rule governing proceedings against attorneys, as outlined in Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. This rule generally mandates that such proceedings remain private and confidential.

    However, the respondents, who are entertainment journalists, argued that the information they published was a matter of public interest. They highlighted Atty. Palad’s involvement as the counsel for Katrina Halili in the highly publicized scandal involving Hayden Kho. They contended that the extensive media coverage surrounding the Halili-Kho case elevated Atty. Palad to a public figure, thus making his suspension a subject of legitimate public concern. This invoked the principle of qualified privileged communication, which is protected under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

    To properly analyze the case, it’s essential to define contempt of court. The Supreme Court defines it as “a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority.” Contempt can be direct, occurring in the presence of the court, or indirect, occurring outside the court but tending to obstruct justice. In this instance, the petitioner filed a charge of criminal contempt, which is directed against the dignity and authority of the court. This type of contempt is considered an offense against both organized society and public justice.

    Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court addresses the confidentiality of attorney disciplinary proceedings:

    Section 18. Confidentiality. Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.

    The Supreme Court has identified three primary purposes for this confidentiality rule:

    1. To enable the court and investigator to conduct investigations free from external influence or interference.
    2. To protect attorneys’ personal and professional reputations from baseless charges.
    3. To deter the press from publishing charges or proceedings prematurely.

    The Court has previously held that unauthorized publication of administrative complaints against lawyers may be actionable and constitute contempt. However, these restrictions must be balanced against the constitutional right to freedom of the press. Therefore, the principle of privileged communication becomes relevant. Publications that serve a legitimate public policy interest are often protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

    The Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous rulings. It noted that the previous cases primarily reported the *filing* of a disbarment complaint without any additional commentary, in good faith, and without malice. Here, the respondents reported on the alleged *suspension* of Atty. Palad, including some of the grounds for the suspension. The crux of the matter is whether the Halili-Kho scandal and Atty. Palad’s involvement constituted a legitimate matter of public interest.

    The term “public interest” lacks a precise definition, encompassing a broad spectrum of subjects that the public may want to know. This interest may arise because the subjects directly affect the public’s lives or simply because they arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. The determination of whether a particular piece of information is of public concern is made on a case-by-case basis.

    In this case, the Court found that the highly publicized controversy involving Atty. Palad’s client, Katrina Halili, was indeed a matter of public interest. The controversy involved issues of photo and video voyeurism on the internet, which are matters of general public concern. The public interest focused on the event, the conduct of the personalities involved, and the content and significance of their actions. The Court quoted the case of *Borjal v. Court of Appeals*:

    If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved. The public’s primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, not the participant’s prior anonymity or notoriety.

    Given that Atty. Palad became a public figure by representing Halili in a matter of public concern, the media had a right to report on the disciplinary case against him. The Court emphasized that the respondents merely reported the alleged suspension and the grounds upon which it was based. There was no evidence presented to show that the publication was malicious or intended to influence the Court’s decision on the disciplinary case. Consequently, the Court found that the respondents did not violate the confidentiality rule in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.

    Moreover, the Court addressed the petitioner’s allegation that the respondents made comments, opinions, and conclusions about the IBP’s findings, relying on hearsay information. The Court noted that while substantiation of facts is important, journalists may rely on information from a single source, provided they do not have a “high degree of awareness of its probable falsity.” The petitioner failed to prove that the respondents had their own copies of the Resolution or that they acted maliciously in publishing the articles. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.

    FAQs

    What was the central legal question in this case? The key issue was whether media publications about an attorney’s disciplinary proceedings violated the confidentiality rule under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, thereby constituting contempt of court.
    What is the general rule regarding the confidentiality of attorney disciplinary proceedings? Rule 139-B generally mandates that proceedings against attorneys remain private and confidential to protect the integrity of the investigation and the reputation of the attorney.
    When can the media report on attorney disciplinary proceedings? The media can report on such proceedings if they are connected to a matter of legitimate public interest, provided the reporting is fair, true, and accurate, and without malice.
    What is meant by “public interest” in this context? “Public interest” refers to matters in which the community at large has a pecuniary interest or an interest that affects their legal rights or liabilities; it goes beyond mere curiosity.
    How did the court define “contempt of court”? The court defined contempt of court as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority, which can be direct (in the presence of the court) or indirect (outside the court).
    What role did the “freedom of the press” play in the court’s decision? The court balanced the confidentiality rule against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, recognizing the media’s right to report on matters of public interest.
    What was the significance of Atty. Palad’s involvement in the Halili-Kho scandal? His involvement in the highly publicized scandal elevated his status, making his subsequent disciplinary proceedings a matter of public interest.
    What must be proven to establish malice in a publication? To establish malice, it must be shown that the statements were published with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard as to whether they were false or not.
    Why was the petition for indirect contempt dismissed in this case? The petition was dismissed because the court found that the media reports concerned a matter of public interest, were not proven to be malicious, and did not violate the confidentiality rule under the circumstances.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the delicate balance between upholding the confidentiality of attorney disciplinary proceedings and safeguarding the freedom of the press. The ruling clarifies that while confidentiality is generally required, it yields to the public’s right to information when the proceedings are linked to matters of legitimate public interest, ensuring transparency and accountability within the legal profession while respecting constitutional rights.

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

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Atty. Raymund P. Palad vs. Lolit Solis, et al., G.R. No. 206691, October 03, 2016

  • Upholding Ethical Standards: Disbarment for Neglect of Duty and Dishonesty

    In Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona, the Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment of a lawyer for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and neglect of professional duties. The attorney failed to perform agreed-upon legal services, issued a worthless check in purported restitution, and disregarded orders from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) during disciplinary proceedings. This ruling underscores the high ethical standards expected of legal professionals and the serious consequences for breaching the trust placed in them by clients and the legal community.

    Broken Promises: When a Lawyer’s Actions Lead to Disbarment

    This case revolves around a complaint filed by Bienvenida Flor Suarez against Atty. Eleonora Maravilla-Ona. Suarez sought Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s assistance in transferring the title to a land. An agreement was made, fees were paid, but the services were never rendered. Despite receiving P48,000 for professional and legal fees, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to take any action to facilitate the transfer. This inaction prompted Suarez to request a refund, leading to the issuance of a check that was subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. The central legal question is whether Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s actions constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that lawyers must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct, both in their professional and private capacities. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit:

    “[Lawyers] shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

    This rule serves as a cornerstone of the legal profession, requiring lawyers to act with integrity and honesty in all their dealings. The Court noted that by taking the lawyer’s oath, attorneys become guardians of the law and essential figures in ensuring justice is served properly.

    Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s actions clearly violated this fundamental principle. She collected fees from Bienvenida Suarez under the pretense of providing legal services but failed to take any meaningful steps to fulfill her obligations. Furthermore, her issuance of a worthless check to refund the fees constituted a dishonest act, further eroding the trust placed in her by her client. As the Supreme Court stated in Belleza v. Atty. Macasa:

    “[A] lawyer’s failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that the lawyer has misappropriated it for his or her own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him or her by the client.”

    This breach of trust is a serious offense, undermining public confidence in the legal profession.

    The Court also found Atty. Maravilla-Ona to have violated Rule 16.01 of the Code, which mandates:

    “A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.”

    Her failure to return the unearned fees to Suarez constituted a direct violation of this rule, demonstrating a lack of accountability and a disregard for her client’s financial interests. This is further compounded by the violation of Canon 18, emphasizing competence and diligence, and Rule 18.03, prohibiting neglect of entrusted legal matters. The combination of these violations paints a clear picture of professional misconduct.

    Adding to the gravity of the situation, Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s actions were deemed to involve moral turpitude. The Court explained that deceitful conduct includes anything contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, representing a baseness or depravity in one’s duties to fellow citizens and society. As such, Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s behavior not only reflected poorly on her professional competence but also revealed a fundamental moral deficiency, making her unfit to continue practicing law. It is important to note, that Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court outlines the grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

    Moreover, the Court took into consideration Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s repeated failure to comply with the directives of the IBP during the disciplinary proceedings. Her refusal to file an answer to the complaint and to attend the mandatory conference demonstrated a blatant disrespect for the IBP and its authority to regulate the legal profession. In Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, the Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain respect not only for the courts but also for judicial officers and other duly constituted authorities, including the IBP. This disregard for the disciplinary process further aggravated her misconduct.

    The Supreme Court also considered prior disciplinary actions against Atty. Maravilla-Ona. These prior cases revealed a pattern of misconduct, including the issuance of worthless checks and the failure to fulfill professional obligations. Despite previous suspensions, Atty. Maravilla-Ona continued to engage in unethical behavior, demonstrating a lack of remorse and a failure to learn from her past mistakes. This pattern of misconduct ultimately led the Court to conclude that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. This ultimate penalty of disbarment underscores the legal profession’s commitment to upholding ethical standards and protecting the public from unscrupulous lawyers. Prior instances where disbarment was deemed appropriate, such as in Overgaard v. Valdez and Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III, served as precedence for the action taken by the court.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s actions, including failing to perform legal services, issuing a worthless check, and disregarding IBP orders, constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disbarment.
    What specific violations did Atty. Maravilla-Ona commit? She violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest conduct), Rule 16.01 (failure to account for client money), Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 (neglect of legal matter), and showed disrespect to the IBP.
    What is moral turpitude, and how did it apply to this case? Moral turpitude involves acts contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. The court found Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s deceitful conduct and abuse of trust to constitute moral turpitude, making her unfit to practice law.
    Why was disbarment chosen as the penalty? Disbarment was chosen due to the gravity and repetition of Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s misconduct, her failure to learn from prior suspensions, and her blatant disregard for the IBP’s disciplinary process.
    What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath? The Lawyer’s Oath embodies the fundamental principles of honesty, integrity, and competence that lawyers must uphold. Violating the oath undermines the legal profession and erodes public trust.
    What does the ruling mean for clients? The ruling reinforces the importance of holding lawyers accountable for their actions and protecting clients from unethical or incompetent legal representation.
    What is the role of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in disciplinary cases? The IBP is empowered to investigate and recommend disciplinary actions against lawyers who violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Its role is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
    Can a lawyer be disbarred for actions outside of their legal practice? Yes, lawyers can be disciplined for conduct in their private capacity that reflects poorly on the profession and demonstrates a lack of moral fitness to practice law.
    What is the effect of disbarment? Disbarment permanently revokes a lawyer’s license to practice law. Their name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and they are prohibited from engaging in any legal practice.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona serves as a stern reminder to all lawyers of their ethical obligations and the serious consequences of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining integrity, competence, and respect for the legal system. This case reinforces that the legal profession demands the highest standards of conduct to protect the public and maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

    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: BIENVENIDA FLOR SUAREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ELEONORA. MARAVILLA-ONA, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016

  • Attorney Disbarment: Upholding Integrity in Land Disputes and Legal Ethics

    In Rouel Yap Paras v. Atty. Justo P. Paras, the Supreme Court of the Philippines disbarred Atty. Justo P. Paras for violating his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that Atty. Paras misrepresented himself as the owner of properties he did not own and voluntarily offered them for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This decision underscores the high ethical standards required of lawyers and the severe consequences for dishonesty and misrepresentation, particularly when it involves undermining property rights and legal processes.

    When a Lawyer’s Deceit Leads to Disbarment: The Case of Atty. Paras

    Rouel Yap Paras filed a complaint against his father, Atty. Justo J. Paras, alleging violations of his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The core of the complaint was that Atty. Paras voluntarily offered properties he did not own or possess to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for coverage under CARP. This act was seen as a deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to dispossess the complainant and his family of their property rights. The case also highlighted Atty. Paras’s history of disciplinary actions, including previous suspensions for similar misconduct.

    The complainant argued that Atty. Paras’s actions violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution and obeying laws), Canon 3 (using only true and honest information), Canon 7 (maintaining the integrity of the legal profession), and Canon 10 (owing candor to the court). Specifically, the complainant pointed to Atty. Paras’s deliberate misrepresentation as a landowner and his attempts to involve the DAR in properties that were already subject to pending litigation. The complainant also highlighted an authorization issued by Atty. Paras, which allegedly led to local residents paying money under false promises of becoming CARP beneficiaries. Such actions, according to the complainant, demonstrated a clear intent to use his legal profession as a tool for personal vengeance and to undermine the constitutional rights of his family.

    Atty. Paras defended himself by claiming that the CARP coverage was initiated by the DAR through a compulsory mode, not a voluntary offer on his part. He argued that the listing of properties was the work of the DAR and that he never submitted a list of his properties to the agency. However, the complainant presented evidence, including a letter from Atty. Paras to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, requesting that the properties be covered under the Compulsory Acquisition Scheme. This evidence contradicted Atty. Paras’s claim and supported the allegation that he had indeed voluntarily offered the properties for CARP coverage. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case and found Atty. Paras guilty of violating his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a suspension from the practice of law.

    The Supreme Court took judicial notice of two prior administrative cases against Atty. Paras, both filed by his wife, Rosa Yap Paras. In Paras v. Atty. Paras, he was found guilty of falsifying his wife’s signature on loan documents and of immorality, concubinage, and abandonment, resulting in a six-month and one-year suspension, respectively. In Yap-Paras v. Atty. Paras, he was found guilty of violating his lawyer’s oath for applying for a free patent over properties already sold by his mother to the complainant’s sister, leading to a one-year suspension. The Court emphasized that both cases involved the same properties and similar acts of deceit and misrepresentation. The Court quoted from Yap-Paras v. Atty. Paras:

    In the instant case, it is clear to the Court that respondent violated his lawyer’s oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society and to the courts, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. Respondent has been deplorably lacking in the candor required of him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court in his acts of applying for the issuance of a free patent over the properties in issue despite his knowledge that the same had already been sold by his mother to complainant’s sister.  This fact, respondent even admitted in the comment that he filed before this Court when he alleged that the said properties were public land under the Forestal Zone “when the mother of the respondent ceded to Aurora Yap some portions of entire occupancy of the Parases.” Moreover, respondent committed deceit and falsehood in his application for free patent over the said properties when he manifested under oath that he had been in the actual possession and occupation of the said lands despite the fact that these were continuously in the possession and occupation of complainants family, as evidenced no less by respondent’s own statements in the pleadings filed before the IBP.

    The Court also highlighted Atty. Paras’s deliberate disregard for its prior rulings and his continued pursuit of the CARP coverage despite knowing he was not the rightful owner of the properties. This was seen as a violation of his lawyer’s oath, which requires obedience to laws and legal orders, as well as a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 states: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Canon 10, Rule 10.01 adds: “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.”

    The Supreme Court stated that Atty. Paras’s actions demonstrated dishonesty, misrepresentation, and deceit, warranting a more severe penalty than the IBP’s recommended six-month suspension. His repeated offenses and blatant disregard for ethical standards justified the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court emphasized that the legal profession demands the highest standards of integrity and that Atty. Paras had repeatedly failed to meet those standards. The decision serves as a strong reminder to all lawyers of their duty to uphold the law, act with candor and honesty, and respect the rights of others.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Atty. Justo P. Paras violated his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by misrepresenting himself as the owner of properties and offering them for CARP coverage when he knew he was not the owner.
    What is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)? CARP is a government program in the Philippines that aims to redistribute agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers. It involves the acquisition of private agricultural lands for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
    What is the significance of a ‘Notice of Coverage’ in CARP? A Notice of Coverage is a formal notification from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to a landowner, informing them that their land is being considered for acquisition under the CARP. It initiates the process of land acquisition and distribution.
    What Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Paras violate? Atty. Paras violated Canon 1, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws; Canon 3, which mandates honest and accurate representation; Canon 7, which demands maintaining the integrity of the legal profession; and Canon 10, which requires candor and fairness to the court.
    What were the previous administrative cases against Atty. Paras? There were two previous cases: one for falsifying his wife’s signature on loan documents and for immorality, and another for applying for a free patent over properties he knew belonged to someone else.
    What was the IBP’s recommendation in this case? The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law for Atty. Paras’s misconduct.
    Why did the Supreme Court impose a more severe penalty than the IBP? The Supreme Court imposed a more severe penalty of disbarment due to the repeated nature of Atty. Paras’s offenses, his blatant disregard for previous disciplinary actions, and the seriousness of his misconduct.
    What is the effect of disbarment on an attorney? Disbarment is the most severe disciplinary action against an attorney, resulting in the permanent revocation of their license to practice law. The attorney’s name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and they are prohibited from engaging in legal practice.
    What does a lawyer’s oath entail? The lawyer’s oath is a solemn pledge taken by every attorney upon admission to the bar, committing them to uphold the law, act with honesty and integrity, and faithfully discharge their duties to the court, clients, and society.

    The disbarment of Atty. Justo J. Paras serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical responsibilities that all lawyers must uphold. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must act with honesty, integrity, and candor, and that any deviation from these standards will be met with severe consequences. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal profession and ensuring that lawyers use their knowledge and skills for the benefit of justice, not for personal gain or to undermine the rights of others.

    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: Rouel Yap Paras v. Atty. Justo P. Paras, A.C. No. 7348, September 27, 2016