Gross Immorality of Lawyer (Bigamy)Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos

A. C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) filed this complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos (respondent).

Facts:In this Complaint for disbarment, complainant Villatuya charged Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos with:

1.) Unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services;2.) Non-payment of fees to complainant despite having promised to complainant (a financial consultant), via a verbal agreement, that the latter would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients; and

3.) Gross immorality for marrying two other women while his first marriage was subsisting, as supported by three different marriage contracts bearing the name of respondent and three other women secured by the complainant.In his defense, respondent asserted that complainant himself was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them regarding the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He presented documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women.II. Issues

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by non-payment of fees to complainant

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation, and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice

III. Ruling

1. Under Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. There was no violation of this provision in this case, for complainant failed to proffer convincing evidence to prove the existence of that agreement.

2. The Court held that respondent indeed used the business entities such as Jesi & Jane Management Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., both owned by him, to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. 3. Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

IV. Adjudication:

The Court resolved the following charges against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos as follows:

1. The charge of dishonesty is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

2. Respondent is REPRIMANDED for acts of illegal advertisement and solicitation.

3. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.

Moral TurpitudeAtty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. vs. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa

A.C. No. 7360 July 24, 2012Atty. Catalan (complainant) filed this complaint for disbarment against Atty. Joselito Silvosa (respondent).

Facts:Complainant has three causes of action against Atty. Silvosa:

1. Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel for the accused in the same case for which he previously appeared as prosecutor hence violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Catalan also alleged that, apart from the fact that Atty. Silvosa and the accused are relatives and have the same middle name, Atty. Silvosa displayed manifest bias in the accuseds favor; 2. Atty. Silvosa bribed his then colleague Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio (Pros. Toribio) for 30,000 to uphold the charge of frustrated murder and not less serious physical injuries in a case where Atty. Catalans brother was a respondent; and 3. The Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Silvosa for direct bribery for having demanded 15,000 from for the dismissal of a homicide case and for the release of said accused Arsenio Cadinas despite the execution of an affidavit of desistance of the complainant in said case.In his defense, respondent claimed that his appearing as a defense counsel for the accused was in compliance with the mandate to render legal services to the needy and to the oppressed. On the second cause of action, Atty. Silvosa dismissed Pros. Toribios allegations as self-serving. On the third cause of action, while Atty. Silvosa admitted his conviction by the Sandiganbayan and is under probation, he asserted that conviction under the 2nd paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code does not involve moral turpitude since the act involved does not amount to a crime.Issue:Whether or not the acts of Atty. Silvosa constitute valid grounds so as to warrant his disbarment

Ruling:Yes. First, when he entered his appearance on the Motion to Post Bail Bond Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts. Indeed, the prohibition against representation of conflicting interests applies although the attorneys intentions were honest and he acted in good faith.Second, the records showed that Atty. Silvosa made an attempt to bribe Pros. Toribio. Pros. Toribio executed her affidavit on 14 June 1999, a day after the failed bribery attempt, and had it notarized by Atty. Nemesio Beltran, then President of the IBP-Bukidnon Chapter. There was no reason for Pros. Toribio to make false testimonies against Atty. Silvosa. Atty. Silvosa, on the other hand, merely denied the accusation and dismissed it as persecution. Third, Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment. Atty. Silvosas final conviction of the crime of direct bribery clearly falls under one of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138. Disbarment follows as a consequence of Atty. Silvosas conviction of the crime.

Adjudication:Respondent Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa is hereby DISBARRED and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Inexcusable Negligence

Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo and Jun Basilio vs. Atty. Virgil R. Castro A.C. No. 6910 July 11, 2012

Before this Court is an administrative complaint filed by Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo and Jun Basilio against respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro (Atty. Castro).

I. Facts

Complainants engaged the legal services of respondent to handle several civil cases before MTC Bambang. In its Decision dated 10 February 2005, MTC Bambang ruled against petitioners. When they appealed, the Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30 (RTC Br. 30) ordered its dismissal for their failure to file the required appellants memorandum despite notice. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended that Atty. Castro be suspended for six months (later modified by the Board of Governors by imposing a three-month suspension) for his failure to file the requisite appellants memorandum before RTC Branch 30 which led to the dismissal of the cases filed by complainants. II. IssueWhether or not Atty. Castro should be held administratively liable for his failure to file the mandatory appellants memorandum before RTC Branch 30

III. RulingYes. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the failure of counsel to file the requisite appellants brief amounts to inexcusable negligence. However, it appears that the conduct of Atty. Castro was not so grave as to warrant a three-month suspension.IV. Adjudication

Atty. Castro is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely. Duty To CourtCriselda C. Gacad vs. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr., RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan, Compostela ValleyA.M. No. RJ-10-2257 July 17, 2012Complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent judge for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to Criminal Case No. 6898 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Comania.

Facts:Complainant alleged that she had given the judge P50,000, upon suggestion of a prosecutor who told her that the judge should be compensated to favor her cause and deny the petition for reinvestigation of the accused in a criminal case where the complainants brother was gunned down. After the first payment, complainant also alleged that the judge wanted to borrow P50,000 from her again but said request was not granted by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant noticed certain irregularities committed by the judge, such as the sending of notice hearings to complainant belatedly and the conducting of bail hearings even without application for bail. Issue:Whether or not respondent judges acts amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

Ruling:

Yes. The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt as to his impartiality, integrity and propriety. It is an ironclad principle that a judge must not only be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial at all times. Being in constant scrutiny by the public, his language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and measured lest the best of intentions be misconstrued Needless to state, any gross misconduct seriously undermines the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary.Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting bail hearings without a petition for bail being filed by the accused and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Clearly, Judge Clapis failed to observe the proper procedure in granting bail. Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.In an earlier administrative case, in Humol vs. Clapis Jr., the Court reminded the respondent judge of the duties of a trial judge when an application for bail is filed, but in the present case, he ignored the same. Therefore, we now impose upon him the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal from the service.

IV. Adjudication

Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley is dismissed from service for Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law.

Duty to ClientSantos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., represented by Gabriel H. Abad vs. Atty. Richard V. Funk

A.C. No. 9094 (ugust 15, 2012

This disbarment case is against a lawyer who sued a former client in representation of a new one.I. Facts

Complainant Hocorma Foundation alleged that respondent Atty. Richard Funk, who used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the foundation from 1983 to 1985 and served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases, filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute, Inc. (Mabalacat Institute) using information that he acquired while serving as its counsel in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and in breach of attorney-client relationship.

In his defense, respondent claimed that in 1985 when Hocorma Foundation refused to pay his attorney's fees, he severed his professional relationship with it. The Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15, Rule 15.0312 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation.II. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new oneIII. Ruling

Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without the foundation's written consent.An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. An attorney may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. This rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer's part does not make it inoperative. IV. Adjudication

Atty. Richard Funk is suspended from the practice of law for one year effective immediately.

Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty

Grace M. Anacta vs. Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion

A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012In a Complaint for disbarment filed on August 22, 2007 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant Grace M. Anacta (complainant) prayed for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion (respondent) for "gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice."Facts:On November 15, 2004, complainant engaged the services of respondent to file on her behalf a petition for annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for which she paid respondent P42,000.

In December 2004, respondent presented to the complainant a supposed copy of a Petition for Annulment of Marriage5 which bore the stamped receipt dated December 8, 2004 of the RTC, as well as its docket number, Civil Case No. 04-25141. From then on, complainant did not hear from respondent or receive any notice from the trial court relative to the said petition. This prompted her to make inquiries with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City (OCC-RTC). To her surprise and dismay, she discovered that no petition for annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141 was ever filed before the said court. Complainant demanded an explanation from respondent but never received any reply, hence this complaint for disbarment was filed. The IBP Board of Governors recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two years to four years and ordered respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P 42,000.00, otherwise his suspension will continue until he returns the sum involved.

Issue:Whether or not respondent lawyer should be suspended from practice of law for his gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice

Ruling:The Court held that the confluence of the evidence submitted by the complainant clearly, convincingly and satisfactorily established that indeed the respondent has authored deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already filed a petition for annulment on behalf of the complainant and pocketing the amount of P42,000.00. He even went to the extent of presenting to the complainant a supposed copy of the petition duly filed with the court.In addition, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship."

Adjudication:Respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for four years. He is also DIRECTED to return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00 within thirty (30) days from the promulgation of the Decision.

Duty To Society

Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco

A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon against respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

Facts:Complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent, alleging that the latter undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. Despite receiving fees amounting to 40 million, the respondent failed to pay the agreed commission and consequently wrote the complainant, informing him that that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. Complainants demand for payment had been ignored by respondent.II. Issue

Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 9.02 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional responsibilityRuling:Yes. Respondent has violated Rule 9.02,12 Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law when he undertook to give complainant commission despite the latter not having any authority to practice law.Adjudication:Atty. Pefianco is suspended from the active practice of law for one year, effective upon notice thereof.

Grave MisconductMila Virtusio vs Atty. Grenalyn VirtusioA.C. No. 6753 (2012)This is a disbarment case filed by complainant Mila Virtusio against her husband's distant relative, Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio.Facts:Complainant alleged that sometime in 1999 Atty. Virtusio convinced her to buy a house and lot at North Olympus Subdivision in Novaliches, Quezon City, from its developer, Stateland Investment Corporation (Stateland). She agreed for Atty. Virtusio to use her personal checks in paying the seller with Mila reimbursing her the amounts on several different occasions. To her surprise however, she received several letters from Stateland to make good the dishonored checks paid to them. Complainant discovered that the respondent had failed to settle the accounts. For fear of losing the property, complainant settled the overdue obligation. She further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return to her the money the latter misappropriated despite demand. Only when she threatened to file a case against her did Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her by executing a deed of sale in her favor covering her Mazda car. Despite the sale, however, Atty. Virtusio pleaded with Mila and her husband to let her keep the car meanwhile since she needed it in her work. When she refused to give up the car, Mila filed a replevin case against Atty. Virtusio that the court eventually decided in Milas favor. But, as it turned out, Atty. Virtusio had managed to register the car in her childrens name and sold it to a third person.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Virtusio is guilty of grave misconduct in her dealings with Mila

Ruling:Yes. By her own account, Atty. Virtusio admitted misusing the money that Mila entrusted to her for payment to Stateland. Her excuse is that she lost track of her finances and mixed up her office funds with her personal funds.

A lawyers gross misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, is ground for suspension or disbarment under the principle that, since good moral character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law, maintaining such trait is a condition for keeping the privilege.

Atty. Virtusio is guilty by her above acts of gross misconduct that warrants her suspension for one year from the practice of law following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Adjudication:Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio is GUlLTY of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and IMPOSES on her the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one year, effective immediately.

Gross ImmoralityMaria Victoria Ventura vs Atty. Danilo Samson

A.C. No. 9608 (November 27, 2012)Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Danilo Samson filed by Maria Victoria Ventura.

Facts: Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent for grossly immoral conduct. She alleged that respondent had carnal knowledge of her twice when she was still a minor, the first being committed in the maids room and the other committed in the respondents poultry farm.Respondent did not deny the deed, but alleged that the sexual act was done with mutual consent, the complainant even accepting the fees he had given after the intercourse. Respondent also alleged that the complainant was of loose morals and that complaint was only concocted so that the complainant can extort money from him.

Issue:Whether or not the respondents act warrant disbarmentRuling:

Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.

Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor who for a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or was not with the latters consent is of no moment.

Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.

Adjudication:

Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Procedural Requirements for Judges

Office of the Court Administratorvs.Judge Lyliha A. Aquino, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, CagayanA.M. No. RTJ-10-2244(November 28, 2012)

Facts:

A group called The Trial Lawyers of Cagayan sent a letter to Chief Justice Puno which contained therein allegations regarding the respondents corrupt ways. The letter was forwarded to the OCA, which then conducted an investigation on the matter, and found that the judge did not strictly follow the procedural requirements in deciding adoption and annulment cases. Issue:Whether or not the acts of the respondent judge warrant an imposition of a severe administrative penalty

Ruling:No. Short-cuts in judicial processes cannot be countenanced by this Court because speed is not the principal objective of trial.

Considering that Judge Aquino was not motivated by bad faith, malice and caused no harm to any litigant, the Court will not mete out a serious administrative penalty at this time, but rather, will impose a fine and warn Judge Aquino that procedural omissions in the hearing of cases would not always be tolerated.

Adjudication:Accordingly, the Court imposes a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) on JUDGE. LYLIHA A. AQUINO with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Duty To Client

Amparo Bueno Vs. Atty. Ramon A. Raneses

A.C. No. 8383 December 11, 2012

Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Ramon Raneses filed on March 3, 1993 by Amparo Bueno with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).Facts:

Complainant hired the services of the respondent to represent her in a civil case. Respondent allegedly convinced her to give P10,000 and another P5,000 in order to bribe the judge and win the case. Despite the complainants giving of the required money, however, she was shocked to find out that the case turned out against her despite her counsels assurance of winning the case. Worse, the respondent allegedly concealed all the development of the case from her, including his failure to comment on the adverse partys offer of evidence and to submit their memorandum on the case.

The respondent has also failed to attend the hearings set by the IBP.

Issue:Whether or not the acts of the respondent warrant disbarment from the practice of law

Ruling:

Yes. In this case, Atty. Raeses committed a grave offense. As explained below, he committed a fraudulent exaction, and at the same time maligned both the judge and the Judiciary. These are exacerbated by his cavalier attitude towards the IBP during the investigation of his case; he practically disregarded its processes and even lied to one of the Investigating Commissioners regarding the notices given him about the case.

From these perspectives, Atty. Raeses wronged his client, the judge allegedly on the take, the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he is a member. The Court cannot and should not allow offenses such as these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and all to all lawyers, their clients and the general public that the Court will not hesitate to act decisively and with no quarters given to defend the interest of the public, of our judicial system and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that these are not compromised by unscrupulous or misguided members of the Bar.

Adjudication:Respondent Atty. Ramon A. Raeses is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.

Impartiality of JudgesAmb. Harry C. Angping and Atty. Sixto Brillantes vs Judge Reynaldo G. Ros. Regional Trial Court, Br. 33, ManilaA.M. No. 12-8-160-RTC December 10, 2012

Petitioners Ambassador Harry C. Angping (Amb. Angping) and Atty. Sixto Brillantes (Atty. Brillantes) filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 33. Petitioners charged Judge Ros for violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Facts:The said letter-complaint emanated from the actions and rulings of Judge Ros relative to Criminal Case Nos. 10-274696 to 10-274704 entitled, People of the Philippines vs. Julian Camacho and Bernardo Ong, for qualified theft. Petitioners alleged that respondent judge was biased when he issued an order dismissing the criminal cases for lack of probable cause within the same day said case was raffled to him. When Judge Ros issued the order resolving the motion for reconsideration after two (2) days from the filing of the comment and without awaiting for PSCs reply, petitioners were convinced that respondent Judge Ros acted with partiality and malice.Issue:Whether or not respondent Judge Ros is liable for violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.Ruling:

The respondent was charged with the violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The said canons provide:

Canon 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

Canon 3 A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.

The Court partially agreed with the OCA when it recommended the dismissal of the present administrative complaint in so far as the respondents liability under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is concerned. The OCA is correct in its observation that petitioners failed to present evidence necessary to prove respondents partiality, malice, bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.Notwithstanding the above findings, this Court is not prepared to concede respondent Judges liability as to Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides: A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. The failure of the petitioners to present evidence that the respondent acted with partiality and malice can only negate the allegation of impropriety, but not the appearance of impropriety.

Adjudication: The charge against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros for violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is hereby DISMISSED. However, for failing to live up to the degree of propriety required of him under Canon 2 of the same Code, he is hereby ADMONISHED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Impartiality of Judges

Dr. Janos B. Vizcaynovs Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan-Compostela, CebuA.M. No. MTJ-10-1772.December 5, 2012Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno (Dr. Vizcayno) filed the present administrative complaint against Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay (Judge Dacanay), Presiding Judge of the 7t11 Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Liloan Compostela, Cebu for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority, Manifest Partiality and Delay.

Facts:Complainant is the defendant in a civil complaint for forcible entry and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 650-R entitled, "Deodito R. Pulido, et al. v. Janos B. Vizcayno," filed before the MCTC, Liloan-Compostela, Cebu. On March 31, 2009, respondent judge (together with the plaintiff who allegedly fraternized with and entertained him), without notice to complainant, conducted anex-parteocular inspection on the property subject of the civil action. Complainant only learned of the ocular inspection through neighbors Norma Tan, Herminia Domain, and Fernan Baguio. Feeling aggrieved, complainant filed a motion for inhibition of respondent judge to hear the civil action. The motion was set for hearing on April 24, 2009. However, respondent judge opted to proceed with the hearing of the case on May 29, 2009. In a heated argument, complainant and his counsel moved that the motion for inhibition be first resolved, but respondent judge ignored the same.

Complainant argued that respondent judge committed a gross violation of the due process clause protected under the Constitution when the latter conducted anex-parteocular inspection without notice to him. Also, respondent judge failed to live up to that norm of conduct that "judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial," when he conducted the ocular inspection together with the plaintiffs. Such act, complainant claimed, was highly improper and grossly inappropriate, and was a violation of Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (New Code of Judicial Conduct) which provides that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for conducting an ocular inspection without informing the parties

Ruling:We have previously ruled that an ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the parties is highly improper.13 Good and noble intentions notwithstanding, Judge Dacanays actuations gave an appearance of impropriety. His behavior diminished public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. We have repeatedly stressed that all those involved in the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach. Their conduct must, at all times, be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. As the administration of justice is a sacred task, this Court condemns and cannot countenance any act on the part of court personnel that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.Adjudication:Respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is found guilty of committing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and is imposed a fine of P30,000.

Duty to ClientEmilia O. Dhaliwal vs. Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing

A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012

Emilia O. DhaIiwal filed a complaint for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing.

Facts:

Emilia Dhaliwal was having some legal issues purchasing a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. Their case reached the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). She then engaged the services of Atty. Abelardo Dumaguing in the year 2000. Atty. Dumaguing was given P342,000.00 for him to consign with the HLURB. With the consignment, he filed a petition with the HLURB to compel Fil-Estate to deliver the title to Dhaliwal. However, a week later, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB the amount of P311,819.94.

In 2003, Dhaliwal terminated the services of Atty. Dumaguing. In the same year, Dhaliwal lost in the HLURB case. She then demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return to her the P311,819.94 he earlier withdrew. Atty. Dumaguing refused to return said amount. Dhaliwal filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Dumaguing.

In his defense, Atty. Dumaguing said that the reason why he deemed it not proper to return the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion for reconsideration with the HLURB but the latter had not yet acted on it. Atty. Dumaguing attached a copy of the said motion for reconsideration.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

Yes. It was established that the attached motion for reconsideration was a mere fabrication because it did not contain proof that the same was filed with the HLURB nor was there proof that the other party was notified.

Atty. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibilitywhich states, among others, that: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. A lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Adjudication: Atty. Dumaguing is hereby suspended for six months from the active practice of law, effective immediately.

Duty to Court

Leave Division Office of the Court Administrator vs Judge Macarine, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte

A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770 July 18, 2012

Facts:

On August 13, 2009, the respondent wrote then Court Administrator, now Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, requesting authority to travel to Hongkong with his family for the period of September 10 - 14, 2009 where he would celebrate his 65th birthday. The respondent stated that his travel abroad shall be charged to his annual forced leave. However, he did not submit the corresponding application for leave pursuant to the OCA Circular 49-2003. For his failure to submit the complete requirements, his request for authority to travel remained unacted upon. The respondent proceeded with his travel abroad without the required travel authority from the OCA.

On January 28, 2010, the respondent was informed by the OCA that his leave of absence for the period of September 9-15, 2009 had been disapproved and his travel considered unauthorized by the Court. When asked regarding his failure to comply with said OCA circular, respondent stated that he and his family flew in immediately to Manila from Surigao for his authority to travel at the Supreme Court on September 9 yet opted not to do in view of the constraint and futility of completing the requirements before their scheduled flight.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge must be held liable for violating OCA circular 49-2003

Ruling:

To ensure management of court dockets and to avoid disruption in the administration of justice, OCA Circular No. 49-2003 requires a judge who wishes to travel abroad to submit, together with his application for leave of absence duly recommended for approval by his Executive Judge, a certification from the Statistics Division, Court Management Office of the OCA, as to the condition of his docket, based on his Certificate of Service for the month immediately preceding the date of his intended travel, that he has decided and resolved all cases or incidents within three (3) months from date of submission, pursuant to Section 15(1) and (2), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

For travelling abroad without having been officially allowed by the Court, the respondent is guilty of violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. Under Section 9(4), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, violation of Supreme Court directives and circular is considered a less serious charge and, therefore, punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

Adjudication:Respondent Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte, is hereby given the ADMONITION that he acted irresponsibly when he opted not to immediately secure a travel authority and is saved only from the full force that his violation carries by the attendant mitigating circumstances. He is also WARNED that the commission of a similar violation in the future will merit a more severe penalty.