NORBERTO S. COLLANTES V. ATTY. ANSELMO B.

MABUTI
A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019

Facts:

Complainant alleged that on October 10, 2009, respondent notarized

a document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" in the City of Manila.
Upon verification, however, he discovered that respondent was not
commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the years 2008-
2009. In support thereof, complainant attached a Certification dated
February 27, 2012 issued by the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk
of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
attesting to the same.

January 15, 2014, respondent denied the allegations and claimed

that the signature in the "Memorandum of Agreement" is not his.
Respondent questioned complainant's motives for filing the present case
against him, claiming that the latter has pending cases for Estafa filed
against him. Finally, he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the
ground of double jeopardy.In this regard, he pointed out that the present
case is based on the same cause of action subject of an earlier complaint,
filed by a certain Mina S. Bertillo before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 11-3036, for which he was
disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years.In support thereof, he attached a copy of the Commissioner's
Report dated August 3, 2012 and the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution
dated March 21,2013 in CBD Case No. 11-3036.

Issue:

Whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for

violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

Ruling:

YES. The Court finds respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti

(respondent) GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 Everdina C. Anegeles V Atty. Anselmo S. Mabuti
A. C. 12063, 8 January 2019

Facts:
Sometime in February 2010, Everdina Angeles engaged the
services of Atty. Wilfredo Lina-ac to file a petition for the nullity of her
marriage with her husband.
Angeles repeatedly followed up with Atty. Lina-ac on the status of her
case. In October 2010, Atty. Lina-ac sent her a copy of a Complaint,
which bore the “received” stamp of the Regional Trial Court Branch 11,
Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon. Angeles found out that Atty Lina-ac did not
filed the petition and she terminated his services. Despite this Atty Lina-
ac filed a second petition without her consent. Angeles filed estafa
against Lina-ac before the provincial prosecutor and Integrated Bar of the
Philippines

Issues:
Whether or not Atty. Lina-ac’s subsequent filing of the petition for
nullity will exculpate him from any administrative liability.

Ruling:
No. Atty. Lina-ac violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility thus be suspended from the practice of law for two (2)
years. He is ORDERED to return to complainant Everdina C. Angeles the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum.
 Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque Jr V Atty. Rizal P. Balbin
A.C. 2088, 4 December 2018

Facts:

Petitioner was the plaintiffs’ counsel and respondent were the

counsel of the defendant in the case FELMAILEM, INC vs Felma Mailem.

After securing a favorable judgement for his client, respondent

allegedly respondent-as counsel for the defendant, and on appeal-started
intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously threatening
complainant into withdrawing the case filed by his client. According to
complainant, respondent would make various telephone calls and send text
messages and e-mails not just to him, but also to his friends and other
clients, threatening to file disbarment and/or criminal suits against him.
Further, and in view of complainant's "high profile" stature, respondent also
threatened to publicize such suits in order to besmirch and/or destroy
complainant's name and reputation.

Despite several notices, respondent failed to filed his comment.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for

the acts complained of.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent did not only violate the lawyer’s oath but as well as
the Canons 8, 11, 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19 and Rule 19.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is suspended
in the practice of law for 2 years.
 Carlos V. Lopez Vs Atty. Milagros Isabel A. Cristobal
A.C. 12146, 10 October 2018

Facts:
Petitioner Lopez availed the services of Respondent Atty Cristobal
and payed the amount of P35,000 pesos as acceptance fee for the case
pending in RTC branch 148 of Makati. The said court ordered both parties
to file position paper but Atty Cristobal failed to do so and allegedly
misrepresented him that she did so.
Petitioner also alleges that Atty. Cristobal did not attend the hearing
and deliberately refuses to communicate with Lopes which prompted him
to end his engagement with her and demanded her to file her withdrawal
of appearance in the subject case and return the acceptance fee.
Despite the written demand made by Lopez, Atty. Cristobal did not
file her withdrawal as counsel of Lopez. The Branch Clerk of Court of RTC
Branch 148 confirmed, in a Certification dated August 30, 2012, that Atty.
Cristobal had not yet filed her withdrawal of appearance as counsel of
Lopez.
On December 6, 2013, Lopez filed a Verified Complaint before the
CBD-IBP praying that Atty. Cristobal be disciplined.

Issue:
Whether or not Complainants refusal to pay accumulated fees be a
basis for withdrawing her services as a lawyer.

Ruling:
No. The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty.
Cristobal's failure to file the required position paper and her failure to
properly withdraw from the case reveals Atty. Cristobal's failure to live up
to her duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of her oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).The acts committed by Atty.
Cristobal thus fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 18.03 and 18.04
of Canon 18 and Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the CPR.
 Kenneth R. Mariano Vs Atty. Jose N. Laki
A.C. 11978, 25 September 2018

Facts:
Petitioner Mariano sought the services of Atty. Loki for filing his
petition for annulment. Respondent asked the amount P160,000.00 peson
on the promise of a favorable decision because according to him the judge
in RTC of Tarlac is his friend and is known to be receptive to annulment
cases. Petitioner allegedly paid the initial amount og P50,000.00 pesos and
paid the remaining amount upon the respondent’s insistence.
For almost a year petitioner discovered that respondent did not file
the petitioned and reason out that the judge was dismissed by the Supreme
Court and makes excuses of not finding the copy of the petition. Petioner
then demanded respondent to return the money but to no avail.
Petitioner filed the disbarment case for dishonesty and
unprofessional conduct and violation of the Professional Code of
Responsibility

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court finds respondent ATTY. JOSE N. LAKI, GUILTY of

gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders, rendering him
unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is, thus,
ORDERED DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken-
off of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. We, likewise, REVOKE
his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public.
 AAA vs Atty. Antonio N. De Los Reyes
A.C. 10021 and 10022, 18 September 2018

Facts:
AAA is a private secretary of the respondent Atty. De Los Reyes.
Petitioner later realized that it was the respondent who was responsible for
her fast promotion.
AAA alleged that respondent would insistently take her to her house
on his way home and had been overly possessive to that she can not refuse
him to take her home. Petitioner added that responded became verbally
abusive and would always monitor even her calls and would get mad if she
spoke with a male co-worker. One night according to her she was grabbed
by the wrist by the respondent and force his way on her. She did not file a
complaint believing that it would be futile.
AAA tried to resign but her financial difficulties prevented her from
doing so. She later succumbs to respondents advances on the fear of
losing her job and became his sex slave who was at his beck and call for
sexual services.
AAA filed a complaint in the IBP alleging that respondent continued
to harass her and her colleague Marivic Alpajaro and Mercedita Lorenzana
who is now her witness.

Issues:
Whether or not respondent Atty. De Los Reyes committed acts
amounting to sexual harassment and gross immoral conduct in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which would warrant his
disbarment.

Ruling:
Yes, the Court finds respondent Atty. Antonio N. De Los Reyes
GUILTY of gross immoral conduct and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
 Akira Yoshimura vs Atty. Bernie Pangsagan
A.C. 10962, 11 September 2018

Facts:

Yoshimura and his wife Bernadette Tugadi went to the respondent’s

office to avail his legal services because they want to be a member of the
Lesambah Cooperative. Petitioner alleged that he paid the amount of
P5,000.00 pesos to Panagsagan and another P24,000.00 for the LTO for
the apprehension tickets, however up to the filing of the complaint the four
plate numbers were still not given to them. Petitioner also alleged that
respondent asked for another P40,000.00 to expedite the release of the
registration of two buses which they later learned that can be easily done
legally. Respondent also asked P5,000.00 pesos for dropping and
substitution from LTO and another P80,000.00 for additional two buses be
registered to Lesambah Cooperative which did not transpire as promised.
Respondent also convinced the petitioner to join another cooperative to the
amount of 380,000.00 which later learned was non-existent. Petitioner
demanded the return of their money but to no avail thus resulted the filing
of complaint to the IBP.

Issues:

Wether or not Atty Panagsagan’s action are grounds for disbarment.

Ruling:

YES. The court finds respondent guilty of gross misconduct, violation

of the notarial law and willful disobedience of lawful orders, rendering him
unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is, thus,
ordered disbarred from the practice of law and his name stricken-off of the
Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. We, likewise, revoke his
incumbent notarial commission, if any, and perpetually disqualifies him
from being commissioned as a notary public.
 Dandiberth Canillo, et al vs Atty. Sergio F. Angeles
A.C 9899, 9900, 9903,9905,9903, 9902, September 2018

Facts:

In A.C. No. 9899, Dandiberth Canillo (Canillo) charged Angeles with gross
negligence for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's directive to file a reply which
resulted in the dismissal of the petition for review in G.R. No. 153138.In A.C. No.
9900, Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar (Dr. Malvar) charged Angeles of representing
conflicting interests in various civil cases involving a common parcel of land.

In A.C. Nos. 9901 and 9902, the complainants charged Angeles for
representing conflicting interests andentering into a champertous contract. In
A.C. Nos. 9903-9905, Dr. Malvar charged Angeles for committing fraudulent and
deceitful acts, gross misconduct, malpractice, and violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility for failing to account for various sums of money allegedly given to
Angeles.

Issues:

Whether or not Atty. Angeles is guilty of the charges.

Ruling:

YES. The reason for the denial of the Canillo petition is clear from the face of
our Resolution dated February 5, 2003: "Angeles and Associates, counsel for
petitioners, failed to file a reply to the comment on the petition for review on certiorari
within the period which expire on November 4,2002 as required in the resolution of
October 16, 2002." In his answer to the complaint, Angeles did not refute the
allegation that he failed to file a reply. Neither did he provide any compelling reason
why he was unable to file one. Instead, he focused his defense on the fact that it was
Dr. Malvar, instead of Canillo, who he was regularly talking to in relation to the case.
This, however, is irrelevant because it was Canillo who was the party-litigant, and
Angeles was his counsel on record. Angeles's negligence violated Rule 18.03.
 Alfred Lehnert vs Atty. Dennis L. Diῆo
A.C. 12174, 28 August 2018

Facts:
Complainant Alfred Lehnert (Lehnert) filed this administrative
Complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on November 11,
2015. He prayed that respondent Atty. Diño be permanently disbarred for
violating the lawyer's oath, as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility, when he committed two (2) violations of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22.
In his Complaint, Lehnert narrated that an Information against Atty.
Diño was filed with Branch 34, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City,
charging him with two (2) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A
Warrant of Arrest was then issued for Atty. Diño's arrest. Members of the
Philippine National Police and National Bureau of Investigation attempted
to serve the warrant on Atty. Diño. However, despite their exhaustive
efforts, they were unable to locate him at his residential addresses in
Bulacan, Quezon City, San Lazaro, and Sta. Cruz, or even at his office
address in Intramuros, Manila. Thus, considering that Atty. Diño was hiding
to evade arrest, Lehnert prayed for his immediate disbarment.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty Dino is guilty of Charges.

Ruling:
Yes. Respondent Atty. Dennis L. Diño is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years. He is likewise WARNED that a repetition
of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
The respondent, upon receipt of this Resolution, shall immediately
serve his suspension. He shall formally manifest to this Court that his
suspension has started, and copy furnish all courts and quasi-judicial
bodies where he has entered his appearance, within five (5) days from
receipt of this Resolution. Respondent shall also serve copies of his
manifestation on all adverse parties in all the cases he entered his formal
appearance.
 Vicente Ferrer A. Brillantes vs Atty. Leo S. Latido
A.C. 12066, 28 August 2018

Facts:
Complainant alleged that sometime in 2009, he decided to engage
respondent as counsel in order to have his marriage with his estranged
Filipina wife, Meriam R. Arietta (Arietta), annulled. After undergoing a
series of interviews with respondent and paying the appropriate legal fees,
respondent told complainant to await the notice from the court where the
former filed the petition. month later, respondent informed complainant that
his petition was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Ballesteros,
Cagayan, Branch 33 (RTC-Ballesteros), docketed as Civil Case No. 33-
306B-2008, and that, in fact, a Decision dated May 14, 2009 (RTC
Decision), penned by Executive Judge Francisco S. Donato (Judge
Donato), was already rendered in his favor. Complainant was then shown
a copy of the said Decision; however, he doubted the authenticity of the
same, given that: (a) regarding the venue of the case, he was a resident of
Lipa City, Batangas and yet his petition was filed before the RTC-
Ballesteros; and (b) the RTC-Ballesteros purportedly granted his petition,
without him even participating in the proceedings therein. These concerns
notwithstanding, respondent assured complainant of the RTC Decision's
authenticity, claiming that "non-appearance" in annulment cases is already
allowed.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court finds respondent Leo S. Latido guilty violating Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
is disbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off
from the roll of attorneys, effective immediately.