OCA vs. Liangco

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, vs.
ATTY. DANIEL B. LIANGCO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 5355
December 13, 2011
Facts: (as stated in A. M. No. MTJ-97-1136) Complainant Hermogenes T. Gozun was in

open and adverse possession of subject land for a period of more than thirty years. His
family’s house was erected on the land. However, the municipality of San Luis, Pampanga
claimed to own the same lot and thereafter issued a resolution claiming it and was said to be
that Gozun and his family were squatting as the new site of the Rural Health Center will rise
in it.
Subsequently, a petition for declaratory relief was filed by the Mayor before herein
respondent, Atty. Lianco, the judge of MTC, San Luis, Pampanga. Liangco then, on the
same day the petition was filed, issued a resolution effecting the eviction of Gozun and all
other persons in the subject, even without serving summons or giving notice of the petition
for declaratory relief to the complainant.
Gozun’s house was then demolished by the municipal government using Liangco’s
resolution as basis, as a result, Gozun filed this administrative complaint with the Office of
the Court Administrator on the ground that the issuance of Liangco’s resolution amounts to
"gross misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence."
Issue: Whether or not Liangco should be disbarred for misconduct as a member of the bar.
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court affirms in toto the findings and recommendations1 of the
IBP, that Liangco’s name be struck off the Roll of Attorneys.
As to gross misconduct: The Court cited Edaño v. Judge Asdala, and explained that
judges, such as the respondent, are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would
enhance the respect and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
Section 1, Canon 2, mandates judges to "ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of reasonable observers." Clearly, it is
of vital importance not only that independence, integrity and impartiality have been observed
by judges and reflected in their decisions, but that these must also appear to have been so
observed in the eyes of the people, so as to avoid any erosion of faith in the justice system.
Thus, judges must be circumspect in their actions in order to avoid doubt and suspicion in
the dispensation of justice.
1
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation: The IBP found justification for the disbarment of the respondent and
recommended that his name be struck off the Roll of Attorneys. The investigating commissioner found that,
based on the facts of the case, there was clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence to warrant the disbarment
of the respondent. The IBP Investigating Commissioner also observed that he had exhibited lapses, as well as
ignorance of well-established rules and procedures. And that the present Complaint was not the first of its kind to
be filed against him, and further noted that before his dismissal from the judiciary, respondent was suspended for
6 months when he assigned to his court, without a raffle, 54 cases for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602 –
a violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7. Also, pending with the Supreme Court were 3 administrative cases
filed against him for dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and direct bribery. In the bribery case, he was caught
by the National Bureau of Investigation in an entrapment operation.
Section 2, Canon 2 states that the behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the
people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also
be seen to be done. Section 2, Canon 3, of the new code, which exhorts judges not only to
be impartial in deciding the cases before them, but also to project the image of impartiality.
Unfortunately, as shown by the facts of the case, these rules were not properly observed by
the respondent as a judge of a first-level court.
As to Inexcusable Ignorance of the Law: Respondent’s wanton use of court processes in

this case without regard for the repercussions on the rights and property of others clearly
shows his unfitness to remain a member of the bar. The respondent simply issued a "legal
opinion,"2 in issuing the resolution but one with all the hallmarks of a valid issuance by a
court of law, despite the absence of mandatory processes such as notice – especially to
Gozun – and hearing. Judges do not, and are not allowed, to issue legal opinions. Their
opinions are always in the context of judicial decisions, or concurring and dissenting opinions
in the case of collegiate courts, and always in the context of contested proceedings.
As judge of a first-level court, respondent is expected to know that he has no

jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer must uphold the Constitution and
promote respect for the legal processes. Contrary to this edict, respondent malevolently
violated the basic constitutional right of Gozun not to be deprived of a right or property
without due process of law. Under Canon 10, Rule 10.03, the respondent as lawyer is
mandated to observe the Rules of Procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice. In this case, however, the opposite happened. The respondent recklessly used the
powers of the court to inflict injustice Hence, Liangco is barred and his name is stricken from
the Rolls of Attorney.
2
Liangco’s answer: He reasoned that he was merely rendering a legal opinion "honestly and in good faith"; and
that his actions were not attended by malice, bad faith or any other ulterior motive. He further pleads for
compassion from this Court and for permission to remain a member of the bar, because the practice of law is his
only means of livelihood to support his family.

OCA vs. Liangco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCA vs. Liangco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCA vs. Liangco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, vs.

ATTY. DANIEL B. LIANGCO, Respondent.

Facts: (as stated in A. M. No. MTJ-97-1136) Complainant Hermogenes T. Gozun was in

As to Inexcusable Ignorance of the Law: Respondent’s wanton use of court processes in

As judge of a first-level court, respondent is expected to know that he has no

You might also like