Tsi Ming Tsoi (4th Set)
Tsi Ming Tsoi (4th Set)
Tsi Ming Tsoi (4th Set)
GUEVARRA VS EALA
A. C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA a.k.a Noli Eala, respondent
FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint
for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee
on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
(respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's oath."
He first met Atty. Jose Eala, the respondent in January 2000 when his
(complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him
as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three
children.
After his marriage to Irene, Guevarra noticed that from January to
March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as
well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you
at Megamall."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at
night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go
home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she
slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her
work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Atty. Jose
(respondent) together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he
confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday
celebration at which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family
and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and
hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of
the household appliances.
Later on, complainant then, a folded social card bearing the words "I
Love You" on its face in the master's bedroom, which card when unfolded
contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding
to Irene from Atty. Eala, the respondent which was admitted by the
respondent upon filing his answer.
Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly
parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn
sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later
that when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with
respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Atty. Eala, violated the lawyer’s oath. Lawyer’s oath stated that a
lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall
not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the
case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the
Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal
dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances,
with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place,
shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period.
Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution,
is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state.
Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the
laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold which constitute a violation of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct,"
Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Cynthia Advincula against
herein Respondent, Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, charging the latter with
Gross Immorality. It was alleged that sometime in December 2004, Advincula
sought legal advice from Atty. Macabata about filing a complaint against
Queensway Travel and Tours for not settling their accounts as demanded.
Consequently, the two met on two separate occasions: the first was on
February 10, 2005, where he sent Advincula home and gave her a kiss on
the cheek and embraced her very tightly, while the other incident took place
on March 6, 2005, where Atty. Macabata allegedly kissed Advincula forcefully
while his other hand was holding her breast.
In his answer, Respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal
services to the complainant; that on both times, complainant rode with him in
his car where he held and kissed complainant on the lips as the former
offered her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt
Avenue, where he dropped off the complainant, was a busy street teeming
with people, thus, it would have been impossible to commit the acts imputed
to him.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral,
or which constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment
or suspension from the practice of law.
Ruling:
NO. The Court held that the acts of Atty. Macabata would not suffice to
warrant a disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Citing the case
of Zaguirre v. Castillo, the SC reiterated the definition of “immoral conduct”, as
such conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the
same must not simply be immoral, but “grossly immoral”: (1) It must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, (2) or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or; (3) committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
Guided by the definitions above, the Court perceived acts of kissing or
beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie,
forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of Respondent, though,
in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are
distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable,
cannot be considered grossly immoral.
In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with the
burden of proof required of her; a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing
does not suffice. Moreover, while Respondent admitted having kissed
complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated by malice. Be it noted
also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in
the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24
hours. If Respondent truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could
have brought her to a private place or a more remote place where he could
freely accomplish the same.
The complaint for disbarment against the Atty. Macabata for alleged
gross immorality is therefore dismissed. However, he is reprimanded to be
more prudent and cautious in dealing with his clients with a stern warning that
a more severe sanction will be imposed on him for any repetition of the same
or similar offense in the future.
3
ELPIDIO P. TIONG v. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO
(A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)
FACTS:
Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and
Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two years, he
suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in
1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard Atty.
Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the
two and both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and
Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which was later notarized,
stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are seeking the
forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma.
Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo.
Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already
pardoned.
FACTS:
Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed Complaint for Disbarment
or Suspension before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline against
respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for "grossly immoral conduct."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the act of Atty. Samson violated Rule 7.03.
RULING:
Yes. Rule 7.03. states that; A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
BUGARING VS ESPANOL
Facts:
This is petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated March 6,
1998 of the Court of Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, declaring petitioner Rexie Efren A.
Bugaring guilty in direct contempt of court.1âwphi1.nêt
The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on
December 5, 1996 of Civil Case NO. 1266-96 entitled "Royal
Becthel2 Builders, Inc. vs. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et al.",
for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title, Specific Performance and
Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order in the sala of respondent judge Dolores S. Español of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the previous counsel of Royal Bechtel
Builders, Inc., the trial court issued an order on February 27, 1996 directing
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to annotate at the back of
certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens. Before the Register of
Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order, the defendant
Spouses Alvaran on April 15, 1996, filed a motion to cancel lis pendens. On
July 19, 1996, petitioner, the newly appointed counsel of Royal Bechtel
Builders, Inc., filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens. On
August 16, 1996, the motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by the court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by the
defendants. On November 5, 1996, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to
Resolve, and on November 6, 1996, filed a Rejoinder to Opposition and
Motion for Contempt of Court.
During the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were present
together with one (1) operating a video camera who was taking pictures of the
proceedings of the case while counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring was
making manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his documentary
evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt of court) the Deputy
Register of Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion.
The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he
did not cause the appearance of the cameraman to take pictures, however, he
admitted that they came from a function, and that was the reason why the
said cameraman was in tow with him and the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the
flimsy explanation given, the counsel sent out the cameraman after the Court
took exception to the fact that although the proceedings are open to the public
and that it being a court of record, and since its permission was not sought,
such situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court.
When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion
manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right then and there
appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to present him, the case was allowed to be
called again. On the second call, Atty. Burgaring started to insist that he be
allowed to mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that
Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written
pleading for his client, considering that the Motion has so many ramifications
and the issues are complicated.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his
documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already
perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has not yet finished with his
manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly procedure, the
Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly
proceeding.
While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt
like doing so. Thus, the Court declared him out of order, at which point, Atty.
Bugaring flared up the uttered words insulting the Court; such as: 'that he
knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of certiorari in the
appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court; that he was going
to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being
antagonistic to his client,' and other invectives were hurled to the discredit of
the Court.
Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt
and order the Court's sheriff to arrest and place him under detention. He was
sentenced to three (3) days imprisonment and payment of a fine of P3,000.00.
His detention shall commence immediately at the Municipal Jail of Imus,
Cavite
While serving the first day of his sentence on December 5, 1996,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order citing him in direct
contempt of court. The next day, December 6, 1996, petitioner filed another
motion praying for the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Both
motions were never resolved and petitioner was released on December 8,
1996.
To clear his name in the legal circle and the general public, petitioner
filed a petition before the Court of Appeals praying for the annulment of the
Order dated December 5, 1996 citing him in direct contempt of court and the
reimbursement of the fine of P3,000.00 on grounds that respondent Judge
Dolores S. Español had no factual and legal basis in citing him in direct
contempt of court, and that said Order was null and void for being in violation
of the Constitution and other pertinent laws and jurisprudence.8
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contempt of
court
RULING
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed order dated
December 5, 1996 issued by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with the
modification that the excess fine of P1,000.00 is ORDERED RETURNED to
the petitioner.
The Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the transcript of
stenographic notes of the hearing held on December 5, 1996, it was
obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant, at times impertinent, too
argumentative, to the extent of being disrespectful, annoying and sarcastic
towards the court.9 It affirmed the order of the respondent judge, but found
that the fine of P3,000.00 exceeded the limit of P2,000.00 prescribed by the
Rules of Court,10 and ordered the excess of P1,000.00 returned to petitioner.
6
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment against respondent Atty.
Chiong because of the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility dealing with the idea that lawyers should treat
each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s client did not appear
upon the court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for their
preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against said client. After which Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the
warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil complaint and collection for a sum
of money and damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the complainant’s client) and
the Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was reached. Chiong
argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant
in Civil Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless.
He argues that he impleaded the Prosecutor because the criminal
investigation had irregularities due to the action of the Prosecutor to file estafa
case despite the pendency for his client’s motion for an opportunity to submit
counter affidavit and evidence.
ISSUE:
Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that defendant’s purpose of filing for the
collection suit with damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the
estafa case of his client. Clearly there was no need to implead complainant
and Prosecutor Salonga because they never had any participation in the
business transactions between Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere
harassment of the two. Chiong was suspended for two (2) years from the
practice of law and was implemented immediately.
7
Torres vs. Javier
AC No. 5910
September 21, 2005
Facts
The complainants, Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino,
charge Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct in
office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of action against respondent.
1.In the Motion to Expedite filed in the audit case, complainants allege
that it contained statements which are absolutely false, unsubstantiated, and
with malicious imputation of crimes of robbery, theft of UEFFA's funds,
destruction or concealment of UEFA's documents and some other acts
tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt upon their persons.
2.Complainants allege that in the attorney's fees case, respondent, in
his "Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez) Answer/Comment" filed
before the DOLE, used language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and
improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial
officer.
3.Complainants allege that respondent made statement that is
demeaning to the integrity of legal profession by stating that;
“It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public asking their
sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a notarial office and sign for
them. These girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits, administer oaths and
certify documents.”
Javier explained that he was angry because Torres had been spreading
reports and rumors implicating his clients including his wife to the burglary.
With respect to the atty.’s fees case, he alleged that Torres, in his Answer, did
not confront the issues but mocked and made malicious accusations against
his wife.
Issue
Whether or not Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier is guilty of malpractice,
gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
Ruling
Yes. He is guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an
attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
The respondent's primordial reason for the offensive remark stated in
his pleadings was his emotional reaction in view of the fact that herein
Complainant was in a legal dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be
sustained. Indeed, the remarks quoted are offensive and inappropriate. That
the Respondent is representing his wife is not at all an excuse. Clients, not
lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between
clients should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct toward
each other or toward suitors in the case.
Meanwhile, on statements demeaning to lawyer’s integrity, it is well
entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,
utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are
pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they
may be.
The requirements of materiality and relevancy are imposed so that the
protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of
justice may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may
be gratified. If the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and
alleges an irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his privilege.
Canon 8 instructs that a lawyer’s arguments in his pleadings should be
gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may
be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.
Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 1
Month and is sternly warned that any future infraction of a similar nature shall
be dealt with more severely.
8
Atty. Bonifacio Barandon v. Atty Edwin Ferrer (2010)
Facts:
Atty Barandon was alleging Atty Ferrer’s conduct and the words he
uttered at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court - Daet before the start of a
hearing (Civil Case 7040). Atty. Ferrer was drunk when he uttered the words:
"Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya.
Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na
narito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi
kayo taga-rito.”
Issue:
Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IP Investigating
Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges
against him.
Ruling:
Facts:
RULING
Respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately
upon receipt of this decision. The case against the other respondents is
DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Let a copy of this decision be
entered in the personal record of respondent as an attorney and as a member
of the Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors recommended
six-month suspension but it would appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty
given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent. It would appear
that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements
were formalized, complainant was by then already the retained counsel for
plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge
of this fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel,
respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their
parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer,
herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an
inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.