SECOND DIVISION.docx

8/10/2019 SECOND DIVISION.docx

1/24

SECOND DIVISION

HUMBERTO C. LIM,JR., A.C. No. 5303

in behalf of PENTA RESORTSCORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of LUMOT A.JALANDONI,

Complainant,

Present:

PUNO, J.,Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

- v e r s u s -

CORONA,

AZCUNA and

GARCIA, JJ.

ATTY. NICANOR V.VILLAROSA,

Respondent.

Promulgated:

June15

,20

06

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J.

Humberto C. Lim

Jr.[1]filed a verified complaint

for disbarment against

respondent Atty. Nicanor V.

Villarosa on July 7,

2000.[2] On February 19,

2002, respondent moved for

the consolidation of the said

complaint with the following

substantially interrelated cases

earlier filed with the First

Division of this Court:

1. Administrative

Case No. 5463:

Sandra F.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn1


2/24

Vaflor v. Atty.

Adoniram P.

Pamplona and

Atty. Nicanor

V. Villarosa;

2. Administrative

Case No. 5502:

Daniel A.

Jalandoni v.

Atty. Nicanor

V. Villarosa.

In a resolution dated

February 24, 2003, this Court

considered Administrative Case

No. 5463 closed and

terminated.[3] On February 4,

2004, considering the

pleadings filed in

Administrative Case No. 5502,

the Court resolved:

(a) to NOTE the notice

of the resolutiondated September27, 2003 of theIntegrated Bar ofthe Philippinesdismissing the caseagainst respondent

for lack of merit;and

(b) to DENY, for lackof merit, the petition

filed by complainantpraying that theresolution of theIntegrated Bar ofthe Philippinesdismissing theinstant case bereviewed and thatproper sanctions beimposed uponrespondent.

[4]

No motion for

reconsideration of the aforesaid

denial in Administrative Case

No. 5502 appears in the

records. The Court is now

called upon to determine the

merits of this remaining case

(A.C. No. 5303) against

respondent.

The complaint read:

AS FIRST CAUSE OFACTION

xxx xxxxxx

- II -


3/24

That respondent isa practicing lawyer and amember of the IntegratedBar of the Philippines,Bacolod City, Negros

Occidental Chapter.That sometime onSeptember 19, 1997,Lumot A. Jalandoni,Chairman/President ofPRC was sued beforeRTC, Branch 52 in CivilCase No. 97-9865, RE:Cabiles et al. vs. LumotJalandoni, et al. The latterengaged the legal services

of herein respondent whoformally entered hisappearance on October 2,1997 as counsel for thedefendants Lumot A.Jalandoni/Totti AnlapGargoles. Respondentas a consequence of said

Attorney-Clientrelationship representedLumot A. Jalandoni et al inthe entire proceedings ofsaid case. Utmost trustand confidence wasreposed on said counsel,hence delicate andconfidential mattersinvolving all the personalcircumstances of his clientwere entrusted to therespondent. The latterwas provided with all thenecessary informationrelative to the property inquestion and likewise onlegal matters affecting thecorporation (PRC)particularly [involving]problems [which affect]Hotel Alhambra. Said

counsel was privy to alltransactions and affairs ofthe corporation/hotel.

- III -

That it wasrespondent whoexclusively handled theentire proceedings ofafore-cited Civil Case No.97-9865 [and] presentedLumot A. Jalandoni as hiswitness prior to formally

resting his case. However,on April 27,1999 respondent, withoutdue notice prior to ascheduled hearing,surprisingly filed a Motionto withdraw as counsel,one day before itsscheduled hearing on April28, 1999. A careful

perusal of said Motion toWithdraw as Counsel willconclusively show that nocopy thereof was furnishedto Lumot A. Jalandoni,neither does it bear herconformity. No doubt,such notorious act ofrespondent resulted to(sic) irreparable damageand injury to Lumot A.Jalandoni, et al since thedecision of the court RTC,Branch 52 proved adverseto Lumot A. Jalandoni, etal. The far reachingeffects of the untimely andunauthorized withdrawalby respondent causedirreparable damage and


4/24

injury to Lumot A.Jalandoni, et al; a highlymeritorious case in favorof his client suddenly[suffered] unexpected

defeat.

- IV -

That the groundsalleged by respondent forhis withdrawal as counselof Lumot A. Jalandoni, etal. was that he is [a]retained counsel of Dennis

G. Jalbuena and theFernando F. Gonzaga, Inc.It was Dennis G. Jalbuenawho recommended him tobe the counsel of Lumot A.Jalandoni, et al. It isworthy to note that fromthe outset, respondentalready knew that DennisG. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. Jalandonibeing married to her eldestdaughter, Carmen J.Jalbuena. The otherdirectors/officers of PRCwere comprised of theeldest sibling of theremaining children ofLumot A. Jalandoni madein accordance with herwishes, with the exceptionof Carmen J. Jalbuena,the only daughterregistered as one of theincorporators of PRC,obviously, being the authorof the registration itself[sic]. Respondent furtherstated that he cannotrefuse to represent Dennis

G. Jalbuena in the casefiled against the latterbefore the CityProsecutors Office byPRC/Lumot A. Jalandoni

due to an allegedretainership agreementwith said Dennis G.Jalbuena. [He] likewiserepresented Carmen J.Jalbuena and one VicenteDelfin when PRC filed thecriminal complaint againstthem. On April 06, 1999,twenty-one (21) days priorto respondents filing of his

Motion to Withdraw asCounsel of Lumot A.Jalandoni, et al.,respondent entered hisappearance with BacolodCity Prosecutor OIC-Vicente C. Acupan,through a letter expresslystat ingthat effective saiddate he was appearing ascounsel for both Dennis G.Jalbuena and Carmen J.Jalbuena and VicenteDelfin in the Estafa casefiled by the corporation(PRC) against them.Simply stated, as early as

April 6, 1999 respondentalready appeared for andin behalf of the Sps.Carmen and DennisJalbuena/Vicente Delfinwhile concurrentlyrepresenting Lumot A.Jalandoni, et al. in CivilCase No. 97-9865.However, despite beingfully aware that the interestof his client Lumot A.Jalandoni [holding an


5/24

equivalent of Eighty-two(82%) percent of PRCsshares of stocks] and theinterest of PRC are oneand the same,

notwithstanding the factthat Lumot A. Jalandoniwas still his client in CivilCase No. 97-9862,respondent opted torepresent opposing clientsat the same time.Thecorporations complaint forestafa (P3,183,5525.00)was filed against the Sps.Dennis and Carmen J.

Jalbuena together withUCPB bank managerVicenteDelfin. Succeeding eventswill show that respondentinstead of desisting fromfurther violation of his[lawyers] oath regardingfidelity to his client, withextreme arrogance,blatantly ignored our lawson Legal Ethics, bypalpably and despicablydefending the Sps. Dennisand Carmen J. Jalbuena inall the cases filed againstthem by PRC through itsduly authorizedrepresentatives, before thePublic Prosecutors Office,Bacolod City (PP vs. Sps.Dennis and Carmen J.Jalbuena for FalseTestimony/Perjury, viol. of

Art. 183 RPC under BCI.S. No. 2000-2304; viol. of

Art. 363, 364, 181 and 183RPC under BC I.S. 2000-2343, PP vs. Carmen J.Jalbuena for viol. of Art.

315 under BC I.S.2000-2125 and variousother related criminalcases against the Sps.Dennis and Carmen

Jalbuena).AS SECOND CAUSE OFACTION

xxx xxxxxx

- I -

xxx xxx

xxx

There is no disputethat respondent was ableto acquire vast resourcesof confidential and delicateinformation on the factsand circumstances of [CivilCase No. 97-9865] whenLumot A. Jalandoni washis client whichknowledge and informationwas acquired by virtue oflawyer-client relationshipbetween respondent andhis clients. Using the saidclassified informationwhich should have beenclosely guarded respondent did then andthere, willfully, unlawfully,feloniously conspired andconfabulated with the Sps.Dennis and Carmen J.Jalbuena in concocting thedespicable and fabricatedcharges against his formerclients denominated as PPvs. Lumot A. Jalandoni,


6/24

Pamela J. Yulo, Cristina J.Lim and Leica J. Lim forviol. of Art. 172 of RevisedPenal Code due to a boardresolution executed by the

corporation which the Sps.Jalbuena, with theassistance of hereinrespondent, claimed tohave been made withoutan actual board meetingdue to an alleged lack ofquorum, [among otherthings]. Were it not for saidfiduciary relation betweenclient and lawyer,

respondent will not be in aposition to furnish hisconspirator spouses withconfidential information onLumot A. Jalandoni/PRC,operator of AlhambraHotel.

- II -

Adding insult toinjury, respondent opted todeliberately withhold theentire case file includingthe marked exhibits of theCabiles case for more thanthree (3) months after hisuntimely unilateralwithdrawal therefrom,despite repeated demandsfrom [his] client. On July26, 1999, capitalizing onhis knowledge of theindispensability of saiddocuments particularly themarked exhibits, whichdeadline to file the formaloffer of exhibits was

continually impressedupon the new counsel bythe court, respondentsuddenly interposed anamount of five thousand

(P5,000.00) pesos asconsideration prior to orsimultaneous to theturnover of saiddocuments. [On] July29, 1999, left with no otheralternative owing to theurgency of the situation,PRC issued Check No.2077686 for P5,000.00 inpayment thereof. This was

duly received byrespondents office on thesame date. Suchdilatory tactics employedby respondent immenselyweakened the case ofLumot A. Jalandonieventually resulting to (sic)an adverse decisionagainst [her].

Furtherdemonstrating before thisHonorable Court thenotoriety of respondent inrepresenting conflictinginterest which extendedeven beyond the familycontroversy was hisimproper appearance incourt in Civil Case No. 99-10660, RE: Amy AlbertQue vs. Penta ResortsCorp., this time favoringthe party opponent ofdefendant who is evenoutside the familycircle. During the pre-trialhearing conducted on May5, 1999, while still [holding]


7/24

exclusive possession ofthe entire case file of hisclient in Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent brazenlypositioned himself beside

Atty. Adoniram P.Pamplona, counsel ofplaintiff [in] a suit againsthis client Lumot A.Jalandoni/PRC, coachingsaid counsel on matters[he was privy to] ascounsel of saidclient. Facts mentioned bysaid counsel of the plaintiffstarting from the last par.

of page 25 until andincluding the entire firstpar. of page 26 were theexact words dictated byrespondent. The entireincident was personallywitnessed by hereincomplainant [who was]only an arms length awayfrom them during thehearing. However, theparticular portion showingthe said irregular acts ofrespondent wasdeliberately excluded bythe court stenographerfrom the transcript, despiteher detailed recollectionand affirmation thereof toherein complainant. Thisprompted the new counselof Lumot A.Jalandoni/PRC tocomplain to the court why

Atty. Nicanor Villarosa wascoaching Atty. Pamplonain such proceedings.Said corrections were onlyeffected after repeateddemands to reflect the

actual events which[transpired] on said pre-trial.

[5](emphasis ours)

In an addendum to the

July 4, 2000 complaint, Lim

also pointed to certain acts of

respondent which allegedly

violated the Rules of Court

perpetration of falsehood and

abuse of his influence asformer public prosecutor.

These supposedly affected the

status of the cases that Lim

filed against the clients of

respondent.[6]

In a motion to dismiss

dated October 30, 2000,

respondent claimed that the

complainant violated Circular

No. 48-2000 because, in his

verification, Lim stated:

3. That [he] prepared thisinstant complaint fordisbarment against Atty.Nicanor V. Villarosa, readits contents, the same areall true and correct to[his] own personal


8/24

knowledge andbelief.

[7](emphasis ours)

Section 4, Rule 7 of the

Rules of Court explicitly

provides that:

SEC.4. Verification. Exceptwhen otherwisespecifically required by lawor rule, pleadings need notbe under oath, verified or

accompanied by affidavit.(5a)

A pleading isverified by an affidavit thatthe affiant has read thepleading and that theallegations therein are trueand correct of his personalknowledge or based onauthentic records.

A pleadingrequired to be verifiedwhich containsverification based oninformation and beliefor upon knowledge,information and belief,or lacks a properverification, shall betreated as an unsignedpleading. (As amended,

A.M. 00-2-10, May 1,2000.) (emphasis ours)

While the Rules provide

that an unsigned pleading

produces no legal effect,[8]the

court may, in its discretion,

allow such deficiency to be

remedied if it appears that the

same was due to mere

inadvertence and not intended

for delay.[9] We find that Lim

was not shown to have

deliberately filed the pleading

in violation of the Rules.

In his comment dated

December 1, 2000, respondent,

reiterating his ground for the

dismissal of the complaint,

added:

[that] complainantHumberto C. Lim, Jr. hasnot only violated the Ruleon Civil Procedure but hewas/is NOT dulyauthorize[d] by the Penta

Resorts Corp. (PRC) nor[by] Lumot A. Jalandoni tofile this complaint against[him]. Neither [was Lim] aproper party to file thiscomplaint. This fact is anadditional ground to havehis case dismissed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7


9/24

because Humberto C. LimJr. exceeded whateverauthority was granted tohim as embodied in aresolution and the Special

Power of Attorneyallegedly granted to him bythe complainants.[10]

To bolster his assertion

that the complaint against him

was unfounded, respondent

presented the following versionin his defense:

FACTS OF THE CASE

xxx xxxxxx

That Mrs.

Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G.Jalbuena married to herdaughter, Carmen J.Jalbuena, and HumbertoC. Lim Jr., the hereincomplainant married to herdaughter, Cristina J. Lim.

That Mrs. LumotJalandoni organized a

corporation namely thePenta Resorts Corporation(PRC) where she ownedalmost ninety sevenpercent (97%). In otherwords, in reality, PentaResorts Corporation is asingle proprietorship

belonging to Mrs.Jalandoni. That the onlyproperty of the corporationis as above-stated, the

Alhambra Hotel,

constructed solely throughthe effort of the spousesJalbuena on that parcel ofland now claimed by theCabiles family.

That sometime onthe year 1997 the caseabove-cited (Civil CaseNo. 97-9865) was filedbefore the court against

the sisters.That [he],being RETAINEDcounselof the spouses Dennis andCarmen J. Jalbuenawas RECOMMENDEDbythe spouses to the sistersto answer the complaintfiled against them.

II.

That as counsel tothe sisters, [he] filed aMotion for Extension OfTime To File Answer and ultimately, [he] filed an

Answer With Counter-Claim And Prayer ForIssuance Of Writ OfPreliminary Injunction.

That reading theAnswer it is clear thatthe defense of the sisterstotally reston publicdocuments (thevarious titles issued to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn10


10/24

land in question becauseof the series [of changes]in ownership) and thesisters and their parentsactual occupation and

possession thereof. xxxxxx xxx

Mr. Lim[s]accusation against [him] inthe light of the above-factsis the best evidence ofHumberto C. Lim, Jr.spenchant for exaggerationand distortion of thetruth. Since the defense of

the sisters to retainownership of the land inquestion is basedon PUBLIC documents, what delicate andconfidential mattersinvolving personalcircumstances of thesisters allegedly entrustedto [him], is Mr. HumbertoC. Lim, Jr. talking about in

paragraphs I and II of hisComplaint? What [privity]to all transactions andaffairs of thecorporation/hotel is hereferring to? Whatevertransactions thecorporation may havebeen involved in or [maybe getting involved into], istotally immaterial andirrelevant to the defense ofthe sisters.

There was nothingpersonal [about the]circumstances of thesisters nor transactions ofthe corporation [which

were] discussed. Thedocuments being offeredas evidence, [he]reiterate[s] for emphasis,are public; the

presumption is that thewhole world knows aboutthem.

That [he] [also]vehemently den[ies]another distortedallegation of Mr. Lim that[he] represented Mrs.Jalandoni [in]the entireproceedings of

[the] case. [Lim] himselfattested that [he] [filed][his] Motion to Withdraw

As Counsel, dated April26, 1999 , before thetrial court, sometime on

April 27, 1999. How thencould [he] haverepresented Mrs.Jalandoni for[the] entire proceedings ofthe case?

Further, Mr.Lim intentionallyhid fromthis Honorable Court theimportant fact that [his]Motion to Withdrawwas APPROVEDby thetrial court because ofthe possibilityof a conflictof interest. xxx xxx xxx.

[11]

Respondent discredited

Lims claim that he deliberately

withheld the records of the


11/24

cited civil case. He insisted

that it took him just a few

days, not three months, to

turn over the records of the

case to Lim.[12] While he

admitted an oversight in

addressing the notice of the

motion to withdraw as counsel

to Mrs. Totti Anlap Gargoles

instead of Mrs. Jalandoni at

Hotel Alhambra, he maintained

that it was the height of

hypocrisy to allege that Mrs.

Jalandoni was not aware of his

motion to withdraw[13]since

Mrs. Gargoles is Mrs.

Jalandonis sister and Hotel

Alhambra is owned by PRC

which, in turn, actually

belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni.

Respondent also argued that

no prejudice was suffered by

Mrs. Jalandoni because she

was already represented by

Atty. Lorenzo S. Alminaza from

the first hearing date.[14] In

fact, respondent contended, it

was he who was not notified of

the substitution of

counsels.[15]

As to the bill of P 5,000,

respondent stated:

That Mr. Limbegrudge[s] [him] forbilling Mrs. Jalandoni FiveThousand (Php5,000.00)Pesos. Mr. Humberto C.Lim Jr.conveniently forgets thatthe net worth of theproperty together with itsimprovements, underlitigation in that Cabiles, etal. vs. Gargoles et al.case, is a minimumof THIRTY MILLION(Php30,000,000.00)PESOSthen, and more sonow. [He] cannot find anylaw which prohibits acounsel from billing aclient for services inproportion to the serviceshe rendered.[16]

In view of these

developments, respondent was

adamant that:

the only real question tobe answered in thiscomplaint is why Mr. Limso consistently[determined] to immerse
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn12


12/24

the Jalandoni family [in] aseries of criminal and civilsuits and to block allattempts to reconcile thefamily by prolonging

litigations, complaints andfiling of new ones in spiteof the RESOLUTION ofthe corporation and theUNDERTAKING of themembers.[17]

On June 18, 2001, the

Court resolved to refer the

complaint to the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines (IBP) for

investigation. Commissioner

Lydia A. Navarro made the

following report and

recommendation:

xxx xxxxxx

After going overthe [pieces of evidence]submitted by the parties[,]the undersigned noted thatfrom the onset, PRC had acase wherein respondent

was its counsel. Later on,complainant had a caseagainst spouses Jalbuenawhere the parties wererelated to each other andthe latter spouses wererepresented by therespondent as their

retained counsel; afterrespondent had allegedlywithdrawn as counsel forthe complainant in CivilCase No. 97-9865.

Being the husbandof one of the complainantswhich respondent himselfaverred in his answer, it isincumbent upon HumbertoLim Jr. to represent hiswife as one of therepresentatives of PRCand Alhambra Hotel in the

administrative complaint toprotect not only herinterest but that of the[familys].

From the factsobtaining, it is evident thatcomplainant had a lawyer-client relationship with therespondent before thelatter [was] retained ascounsel by the SpousesJalbuena when the latterwere sued bycomplainantsrepresentative.

We cannotdisregard the fact that onthis situation for somereason or another thereexisted someconfidentiality and trustbetween complainants andrespondent to ensure thesuccessful defense of theircases.

Respondent forhaving appeared as


13/24

counsel for the SpousesJalbuena when charged byrespondents former clientJalandoni of PRC and

Alhambra Hotel,

represented conflictinginterests in violation ofthe Canon of ProfessionalResponsibility.

As such therefore,the Undersigned has noalternative but torespectfully recommendthe suspension of therespondent from the

practice of law for a periodof six (6) months fromreceipt hereof.

RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED.

Pasig City, June20, 2002.[18]

The IBP Board of

Governors (Board), however,

reversed the recommendation

of the investigating

commissioner and resolved to

dismiss the case on August 3,

2002.[19]Lumot A. Jalandoni

filed a motion for

reconsideration (MR) on

October 18, 2002 but the

Board denied the MR since it

no longer had jurisdiction to

consider and resolve a matter

already endorsed

to this Court.[20]

Before delving into the

core issues of this case, we

need to address some

preliminary matters.

Respondent argues that

the alleged resolution of PRC

and the special power of

attorney given by Lumot A.

Jalandoni to Humberto did not

contemplate the filing of an

administrative

complaint.[21] Citing the Rules

of Court, respondent said that:

[s]uch complaints arepersonal in nature andtherefore, the filing of thesame, cannot

be delegatedby thealleged aggrieved party toany third person unlessexpressly authorized bylaw.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn18


14/24

We must note, however,

the following:

SECTION 1. How

instituted. Proceedingsfor disbarment,suspension or discipline ofattorneys may be taken bythe Supreme Court motu

propio, or by theIntegrated Bar of thePhilippines (IBP) upon theverified complaint ofanyperson.The complaintshall state clearly and

concisely the factscomplained of and shall besupported by affidavits orpersons having personalknowledgeof the factstherein alleged and/or bysuch documents a maysubstantiate said facts.

The IBP Board ofGovernors may, motu

propio or upon referral bythe Supreme Court or by aChapter Board of Officers,or at the instance of anyperson, initiate andprosecute proper chargesagainst any erringattorneys.

[22](emphasis

ours)

Complaints against

members of the Bar are

pursued to preserve the

integrity of the legal profession,

not for private vendetta. Thus,

whoever has such personal

knowledge of facts constituting

a cause of action against erring

lawyers may file a verified

complaint with the Court or

the IBP.[23]Corollary to the

public interest in these

proceedings is the following

rule:

SEC. 11. Defects. Nodefect in a complaint,notice, answer, or in theproceeding or theInvestigators Reportshall be considered assubstantial unless theBoard of Governors,upon considering the

whole record, finds thatsuch defect has resultedor may result in amiscarriage of justice, inwhich event the Boardshall take such remedialaction as thecircumstances maywarrant, includinginvalidation of the entireproceedings.[24](emphasis

ours)

Respondent failed to

substantiate his allegation that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn22


15/24

Lims complaint was defective

in form and substance, and

that entertaining it would

result in a miscarriage of

justice. For the same reason,

we will no longer put in issue

the filing at the onset of a

motion to dismiss by

respondent instead of an

answer or comment.[25]

The core issues before us

now are:

1. whether there

existed a

conflict of

interest in the

cases

represented

and handled by

respondent,

and

2. whether

respondent

properly

withdrew his

services as

counsel of

record in Civil

Case No. 97-

9865.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Petitioners alleged that as

an offshoot of representing

conflicting interests, breach of

attorney-client confidentiality

and deliberate withholding of

records were committed by

respondent. To effectively

unravel the alleged conflict ofinterest, we must look into the

cases involved.

In Civil Case No. 97-9865,

respondent represented Lumot

A. Jalandoni and Totti Anlap

Gargoles. This was a case for

the recovery of possession of

property involving Hotel

Alhambra, a hotel owned by

PRC.


16/24

In BC I.S. No. 99-

2192, Lim v. Vicente Delfin,

Spouses Dennis and Carmen

Jalbuena, respondent was

counsel for Delfin and the

spouses Jalbuena. In this case,

plaintiff Cristina Lim sued the

spouses Jalbuena and Delfin

on the basis of two checks

issued by PRC for the

construction of Hotel

Alhambra.[26]The corporate

records allegedly reflected that

the contractor, AAQ Sales and

Construction (AAQSC), was

already paid in full yet Amy

Albert Que of AAQSC still filed

a collection case against PRC

for an unpaid balance.[27]In

her complaint-affidavit,

Cristina averred:

11. That it was respondentCarmen J. Jalbuena, whotook advantage of [her]signatures in blank in DBPCheck Nos. 0865590 and0865591, and who filled upthe spaces of the payee,date and amount without

the knowledge andconsent of any officer ofthe corporation and[herself], after which shecaused the delivery of the

same checks to herhusband Dennis Jalbuena,who encashed without[their] knowledge andconsent, and received theproceeds of the samechecks (as evidenced byhis signature in receipt ofpayment on the dorsalside of the said checks)with the indispensable

participation andcooperation of respondentVicente B. Delfin, the Asst.Vice President and BranchHead of UCPB.[28]

Notably, in his comment,

respondent stated:

There was a possibility ofconflict of interest becauseby this time, or onemonth before [he] filed[his] Motion to Withdraw,Mrs. Jalandoni /PentaResorts Corporation, Mr.Lim, throughhis wife, Cristina J. Lim,by another counsel, Atty.Lorenzo S. Alminaza,

filed a criminal complaintagainst the spousesDennis and Carmen J.Jalbuena on March 26,1999 under BC-I.S.Case No. 99-2192.[29]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn26


17/24

Similarly, in BC I.S. Nos.

00-1370, 2000-2304, 2000-

2343, 00-2125, 00-2230, 00-

880, respondent positioned

himself against PRCs

interests.

And, in Civil Case No. 99-

10660, a collection case

against PRC, Atty. Alminaza of

PRC was alarmed by the

appearance of respondent at

the table in court for AAQSCs

counsel.[30]

Canon 15 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility

(CPR) highlights the need

for candor, fairness and loyalty

in all the dealings of lawyers

with their clients. Rule 15.03 of

the CPR aptly provides:

Rule 15.03 Alawyer shall not representconflicting interests exceptby written consent of allconcerned given after afull disclosure of the facts.

It is only upon strict

compliance with the condition

of full disclosure of facts that a

lawyer may appear against his

client; otherwise, his

representation of conflicting

interests is

reprehensible.[31]Conflict of

interest may be determined in

this manner:There is representation ofconflicting interests if theacceptance of the newretainer will require theattorney to do anythingwhich will injuriouslyaffect his first client inany matterin which herepresents him and also

whether he will be calledupon in his new relation, touse against his first clientany knowledge acquiredthrough theirconnection.[32](emphasisours)

The rule on conflict of

interests covers not only cases

in which confidential

communications have been

confided but alsothose in


18/24

which no confidence has been

bestowed or will be used.[33]

Another test of the

inconsistency of interestsis whether the acceptanceof a new relation willprevent an attorney fromthe full discharge of hisduty of undivided fidelityand loyalty to his client orinvite suspicion ofunfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performancethereof, and also whether

he will be called upon inhis new relation to useagainst his first client anyknowledge acquire in thepreviousemployment. The first partof the rule refers to casesin which the opposingparties are present clientseither in the same actionor in a totally unrelated

case; the second partpertains to those in whichthe adverse party againstwhom the attorneyappears is his formerclient in a matter which isrelated, directly orindirectly, to the presentcontroversy.

[34] (emphasis

ours)

The rule prohibits a

lawyer from representing new

clients whose interests oppose

those of a former client in any

manner, whether or not they

are parties in the same action

or in totally unrelated

cases. The cases here directly

or indirectly involved the

parties connection to PRC,

even if neither PRC nor Lumot

A. Jalandoni was specifically

named as party-litigant in

some of the cases mentioned.

An attorney owes to hisclient undividedallegiance. After beingretained and receiving theconfidences of the client, hecannot, without the free andintelligent consent of his

client, act both for his clientand for one whose interestis adverse to, or conflictingwith that of his client in thesame generalmatter.The prohibitionstands even if theadverse interest is veryslight; neither is itmaterial that the intentionand motive of the

attorney may have beenhonest.[35](emphasis ours)

The representation by a

lawyer of conflicting interests,


19/24

in the absence of the written

consent of all parties

concerned after a full

disclosure of the facts,

constitutes professional

misconduct which subjects the

lawyer to disciplinary action.[36]

Even respondents alleged

effort to settle the existing

controversy among the family

members[37]was improper

because the written consent of

all concerned was still

required.[38] A lawyer who acts

as such in settling a dispute

cannot represent any of the

parties to it.[39]

WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL IN

CIVIL CASE NO. 97-9865

The next bone of

contention was the propriety of

respondents withdrawal as

counsel for Lumot A. Jalandoni

in Civil Case No. 97-9865 to

fulfill an alleged retainership

agreement with the spouses

Jalbuena in a suit by PRC,

through Cristina Lim, against

the Jalbuenas and Delfin (BC

I.S. No. 99-2192). In his

December 1, 2000 comment,

respondent stated that it was

he who was not notified of the

hiring of Atty. Alminaza as the

new counsel in that case and

that he withdrew from the case

with the knowledge of Lumot

A. Jalandoni and with leave of

court.

The rule on termination of

attorney-client relations may

be summarized as follows:

The relation of attorneyand client may beterminated by the client, bythe lawyer or by the court,or by reason of

circumstances beyond thecontrol of the client or thelawyer. The termination ofthe attorney-clientrelationship entails certainduties on the part of theclient and his lawyer.

[40]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn36


20/24

Accordingly, it has been

held that the right of an

attorney to withdraw orterminate the relation other

than for sufficient cause is

considerably restricted. Canon

22 of the CPR reads:

Canon 22A lawyer shallwithdraw his services only

for good cause and uponnotice appropriate in thecircumstances.

An attorney may only

retire from a case either by

written consent of his client or

by permission of the court after

due notice and hearing, in

which event the attorney

should see to it that the name

of the new lawyer is recorded

in the case.[41]A lawyer who

desires to retire from an action

without the written consent of

his client must file a petition

for withdrawal in court.[42]He

must serve a copy of his

petition upon his client and the

adverse party at least three

days before the date set for

hearing, otherwise the court

may treat the application as a

mere scrap of

paper.[43]Respondent made no

such move. He admitted that

he withdrew as counsel on

April 26, 1999, which

withdrawal was supposedly

approved by the court on April

28, 1999. The conformity of

Mrs. Jalandoni was only

presumed by Atty. Villarosa

because of the appearance of

Atty. Alminaza in court,

supposedly in his place.

[A client] may dischargehis attorney at any timewith or without cause andthereafter employ anotherlawyer who may then enterhis appearance. Thus, it

has been held that a clientis free to change hiscounsel in a pending caseand thereafter retainanother lawyer torepresent him. Thatmanner of changing alawyer does not need the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41


21/24

consent of the lawyer to bedismissed. Nor does itrequire approval of thecourt.[44]

The appearance of Atty.

Alminaza in fact was not even

to substitute for respondent

but to act as additional

counsel.[45]Mrs. Jalandonis

conformity to having an

additional lawyer did not

necessarily mean conformity to

respondents desire to

withdraw as counsel.

Respondents speculations on

the professional relationship of

Atty. Alminaza and Mrs.

Jalandoni find no support in

the records of this case.

Respondent should not

have presumed that his motion

to withdraw as

counsel[46]would be granted by

the court. Yet, he stopped

appearing as Mrs. Jalandonis

counsel beginning April 28,

1999, the first hearing

date. No order from the court

was shown to have actually

granted his motion for

withdrawal. Only an order

dated June 4, 1999 had a

semblance of granting his

motion:

When this case was calledfor hearing Atty. Lorenzo

Alminaza appeared for thedefendants consideringthat Atty. NicanorVillarosa has alreadywithdrawn hisappearance in this casewhich the Courtconsidered it to beapproved as it bears theconformity of thedefendants.[47](emphasisours)

That Mrs. Jalandoni

continued with Atty.

Alminazas professional

engagement on her behalf

despite respondents

withdrawal did not absolve the

latter of the consequences of

his unprofessional conduct,

specially in view of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn44


22/24

conflicting interests already

discussed. Respondent himself

stated that his withdrawal

from Civil Case No. 97-9865

was due to the possibility of a

conflict of interest.[48]

Be that as it may, the

records do not support the

claim that respondent

improperly collected P5,000

from petitioner. Undoubtedly,

respondent provided

professional services to Lumot

A. Jalandoni. Furthermore,

there is no evidence that the

documents belonging to Mrs.

Jalandoni were deliberately

withheld. The right of an

attorney to retain possession of

a clients documents, money or

other property which may have

lawfully come into hispossession in his professional

capacity, until his lawful fees

and disbursements have been

fully paid, is well-

established.[49]

Finally, we express our

utter dismay with Lims

apparent use of his wifes

community tax certificate

number in his complaint for

disbarment against

respondent.[50]This is not,

however, the forum to discuss

this lapse.

WHEREFORE, in view of

the foregoing, respondent Atty.

Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby

found GUILTY of violating

Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the

Code of Professional

Responsibility and

isSUSPENDEDfrom the

practice of law for one (1) year,

effective upon receipt of this

decision, with a STERNWARNINGthat a repetition of

the same or similar acts will be

dealt with more severely.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn48


23/24

Let a copy of this

resolution be entered into the

records of respondent and

furnished to the Office of the

Clerk of Court, the Office of the

Bar Confidant, the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines, and all

courts in the Philippines, for

their information and

guidance.

SO ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNOAssociate Justice

Chairperson

ANGELINA SANDOVGUTIERREZ ADOLFO S. AZCU

AssociateJustice Associ

ate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIAAssociate Justice

[1] Humberto sued on behalf of Penta Resorts

Corporation (PRC) and as attorney-in-fact of

Lumor A. Jalandoni; Resolution 99-002,Special Power of Attorney, rollo, Vol. I, pp.

18-19.[2] In a manifestation dated May 23, 2002,

Humberto averred that Atty. Villarosa was

also a respondent to the following

administrative cases already submitted for

resolution:1. Administrative Case No.

5409: Humberto C. Lim Jr.,

for and in behalf of PRC and

Lumot A. Jalandoni, v. Atty.

Adoniram P. Pamplona and

Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa;2. Administrative Case No.

5410: Lumot A. Jalandoni v.

Judge Anastacio C. Rufon,

Atty. Dionisio C. Isidto and

Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa.[3] Resolution, rollo(A.C. No. 5463), p. 136.[4] Resolution, rollo(A.C. No. 5502), p. 585.[5] Complaint, rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-15.[6] Addendum to Complaint dated 04 July

2000, rollo, Vol. I, pp. 110-115.[7] Verification, rollo, Vol. I, p. 16.[8] RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 3.[9]

Id.[10] Comment to Complainants Complaint

dated July 4, 2000, rollo, Vol. I, p. 166.[11] Comment, rollo, Vol. I, pp. 169-172.[12] Id.,pp. 173-176.[13] Comment, rollo, Vol. I, p. 177.[14] Id.,pp. 178-180.[15] Id.,p. 178.[16] Id.,p. 181.[17] Id.,p. 192.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref1


24/24

[18] Report and Recommendation, rollo, Vol. I,

pp. 268-269.[19] Notice of Resolution, rollo, Vol. I, p. 259.[20] Notice of Resolution, rollo. Vol. II, p. 8

citing RULES OF COURT, Rule 139-B,

Section 12 (c). In a resolution dated

February 12, 2003, this Court notedthe

resolution of the IBP dated August 3, 2002

which reversed the report and

recommendation of the investigating

commissioner and dismissed the case and

the resolution dated October 19, 2002 which

denied complainants motion for

reconsideration of the decision of the IBP

Board of Governors as the Board has no

more jurisdiction to consider and resolve a

matter already endorsed to this Court. (rollo,

Vol. II, p. 37) (emphasis ours)[21] Comment, rollo, Vol. I, p. 166; Resolution

99-002, Special Power of Attorney, rollo,

Vol. I, pp. 18-19.[22] RULES OF COURT, Rule 139-B, Section

1. As amended, Bar Matter No. 1960, May,

1, 2000.[23] Id.[24] RULES OF COURT, Rule 139-B, Sec. 11.[25] Motion to Expunge from the Records

Respondents Comment to Complainants

Complaint dated 01 December 2000, rollo,

Vol. I, p. 243 which was based on

prescription.[26] Affidavit-Complaint, rollo, Vol. I, p. 57.[27] Id.[28]

Id.,p. 58.[29] Comment, rollo, Vol. I, p. 172.[30] Civil Case No. 99-10660 TSN (May 5,

1999), rollo, Vol. I, p. 84.[31] Ernesto L. Pineda, LEGAL AND

JUDICIAL ETHICS (Central Professional

Books, Inc., Quezon City, Philippines)

(1995), 183.[32] Pinedasupra note 31, at 179citingPierce

v. Palmer, 31 R.I. 432.[33] Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569

(1949);Nombrado v. Hernandez, 135 Phil 5

(1968);Bautista v. Barrios, 119 Phil 6

(1963).[34] Ruben E. Agpalo, LEGAL AND

JUDICIAL ETHICS (2002), 282-283. See

alsoIn re Dela Rosa,27 Phil. 258

(1914); Tiania v. Ocampo, A.C. No. 2285 12

August 1991, 200 SCRA 472.[35] Pinedasupra note 31, at 180citing 5 Am.

Jur. 296.[36] In re De la Rosa,27 Phil. 258 (1914).[37] Comment, rollo, Vol. I, pp. 184-185.

[38] Pinedasupra note 31, citing Rule 15.04,

CPR.[39] Id.Citation omitted.[40] Agpalosupranote 34, at 349.[41] Pinedasupra note 31, at 267.[42] Agpalosupra note 34 citingIn re

Montagne & Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577

(1904);Alcantara, Jr. v. Veloso, No. L-

37844, 30 June 1975, 64 SCRA

720;Intestate Estate of the Deceased Luis C.

Domingo Sr. v. Aquino, 148 Phil. 486

(1971). See also RULES OF COURT, Rule

138, Section 26.[43] Visitacion v. Manit, 137 Phil. 348

(1969); G.A. Machineries, Inc. v. Januto,

151-A Phil. 5 (1973).[44] Agpalosupra note 34 citing Canon 7,

Canons of Professional Ethics;Laput v. Atty.

Remotigue and Patalinghug, 116 Phil. 371

(1962);Bernardino Guerrero & Associate v.

Tan, 121 Phil. 1239 (1965).[45] Entry of Appearance as Additional

Counsel dated April 27, 1999, rollo, Vol. I, p.

206.[46] Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, rollo,

Vol. I, pp. 30-31.[47] Penned by Judge Anastacio C.

Rufon, rollo, Vol. I, p. 208.[48] Comment, rollo, Vol. I, p. 172.[49] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 37;

CPR, Canon 22, Rule 22.02.[50] Rollo, Vol. I., pp. 238-241.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftnref18

SECOND DIVISION.docx

Documents

Transcript of SECOND DIVISION.docx