Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 193 views

    Samala vs. Valencia, 512 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 5439 January 22, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Carlos James
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a complaint filed against attorney Luciano D. Valencia for disbarment. The Court found Valencia guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in several ways: representing opposing parties in two separate cases, knowingly submitting false evidence to mislead the court, and admitting to acts of immorality. As a result, the Court suspended Valencia from practicing law for three years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Samala vs. Valencia, 512 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 5439 January 22, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Carlos James
    193 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a complaint filed against attorney Luciano D. Valencia for disbarment. The Court found Valencia guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in several ways: representing opposing parties in two separate cases, knowingly submitting false evidence to mislead the court, and admitting to acts of immorality. As a result, the Court suspended Valencia from practicing law for three years.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Samala v Valencia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a complaint filed against attorney Luciano D. Valencia for disbarment. The Court found Valencia guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in several ways: representing opposing parties in two separate cases, knowingly submitting false evidence to mislead the court, and admitting to acts of immorality. As a result, the Court suspended Valencia from practicing law for three years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    193 views1 page

    Samala vs. Valencia, 512 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 5439 January 22, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Carlos James
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a complaint filed against attorney Luciano D. Valencia for disbarment. The Court found Valencia guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in several ways: representing opposing parties in two separate cases, knowingly submitting false evidence to mislead the court, and admitting to acts of immorality. As a result, the Court suspended Valencia from practicing law for three years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Samala vs. Valencia, 512 SCRA 1, A.C. No.

    5439 January 22, 2007

    Facts

    This is a complaint filed by Clarita J. Samala against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for disbarment on the following grounds, to
    wit:

    1. Serving on two (2) separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;


    2. Knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
    3. Initiating numerous cases in exchange for non – payment of rental fees; and
    4. Having a reputation of being immoral by siring (cause the birth of) illegitimate children.

    Issue

    Whether or not the respondent violated his Code of Professional Responsibility?

    Held

    Yes. Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E Reyes found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months.

    The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendations of Commissioner Reyes but
    increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year.

    The court held

     On serving as counsel for contending parties (Canon 21)


    o The fact that the respondent filed a case entitled “Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante” and her husband, is a
    clear indication that the respondent is protecting the interest of both Valdez and Alba in the said case.
    Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer – client relationship between him and Alba has long been
    severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, wherein the written consent of his
    client is required. Respondent’s representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband,
    in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in another case, is a clear indication of conflict of interest which
    merits a corresponding sanction from this court.
     On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence. (Canon 10)
    o Respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he has submitted was already cancelled in
    lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of the latter’s ownership. What is
    decisive in this case is the respondent’s intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No.
    273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was
    already issued in the name of Alba.
     On initiating numerous cases in exchange for non – payment of rental fees (Dismissed for lack of sufficient basis)
    o The act of respondent of filing numerous cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his
    own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly
    shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
     On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children (Canon 1, Rule 1.01)
    o The court found the respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. During the
    hearing, respondent admitted that he sired children by Teresita Lagmay who are all over 20 years of age,
    while his first wife was still alive. In this case, the admission made by respondent are more than enough
    to hold him liable on the charge of immorality.

    In sum, the Court found respondent, Atty. Valencia guilty of misconduct and violation of Canon’s 21, 10 and 1 of the
    Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for three years.

    You might also like