Lex Defender

Going to your relatives in Bulacan, from Laguna takes lot of planning and patience. Here are some tips to make travel less of a chore: 1. Travel light, pack light. Plan how many days you're going to stay and plan your clothes and other items accordingly. 2. Pack your electronic gadgets smartly. You may own a laptop, tablet and phone. Just bring the most useful one. My purpose is to visit my relatives and enjoy some time. I won't work during my vacation. A smartphone is okay for my needs. Just make you enough load to connect. Bring extra batteries, charger and selfie stick (forgot this...😣). Use cloud storage like Google drive to store photos... 3. Wear comfortable clothes. A gray cotton shirt, shorts and comfortable shoes are okay. Bring slippers to relax your feet. 4. Bring your essentials. Essentials may vary from person to person. For me, tissue paper, water, bath essentials, and supplements. If you have space, bring first aid kit. 5. Something to pass by time. In my s

Alex B. Cueto, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 5798, 20 January 2005 Facts: Engr. Alex Cueto was contracted to build a building for PhP 5,000,000.00 for Jose Jimenez III. Cueto decided to have the contract notarized and he chose Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr., father of Jimenez III, to notarize the said contract. Before the notarization, the complainant did not how much will Atty. Jimenez be charging. So he was surprise when after the notarization, he was being asked to pay PhP 50,000.00. The complainant paid in cash the amount of PhP 30,000.00 and he issued a check worth PhP 20,000.00 to Atty. Jimenez. Later, the complainant advised the respondent not encash the check yet because he has insufficient funds. Notwithstanding, Atty. Jimenez still tried to encash the check hence it was dishonored. Atty. Jimenez then filed a criminal suit against Cueto. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Jimenez, Jr.’s action is appropriate. Held: He violated Canon

Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon, Complainants v. Atty. Arturo B. Cefra, Respondent A.C. No. 5482, 10 February 2015 Facts:     Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants , along with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 square meter parcel of land located in Sison, Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land owned by the complainants. The names of petitioners appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. appeared as the vendee. The complainants claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and sister to have signed the document because they were somewhere else at that time. D

Virgilio J. Mapalad, Jr., Complainant, v. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, Respondent A.C. No. 10911, 6 June 2017 Facts:     Complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent for presenting falsified Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Number without indicating the date of issue. The respondent used the said falsified MCLE Number in several legal pleadings against the complainant.     Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, a certification was issued stating the respondent has yet complied his MCLE requirements. The complainant filed his complaint against the respondent at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties and counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct. The complainant, thus, prayed for the IBP to recommend respondent’s disbarment.     The respondent was given the chance to comment on

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admi

Elisa Venterez, Genero de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon De Vera, Complainants, v. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme , Respondent A.C. No. 7421, 10 October 2007 Facts: Venterez and friends hired Atty. Cosme as counsel for a land title dispute. The court ruled against the complainants. They wanted to file a motion of reconsideration but Atty. Cosme failed or refused to do so. Because of this, the complainants were constrained to contact another lawyer to prepare the motion for reconsideration. Atty. Cosme claims that the son of one of the complainants informed him that the complainants were withdrawing the case from him because he (the son) engaged another lawyer to take over the case. Atty. Cosme further explained that he even turned over the records of the case to the son, ceased to be counsel of the complainants. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of the Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held: The Supreme Co

Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid, Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon City, Complainant, v. Atty. Juan S. Dealca, Respondent A.C. No. 7474, 9 September 2014 Facts:     The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a pending case docketed at the Court of Appeals wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant.     The parties agreed upon PhP 15,000.00 as attorney’s fees with the following breakdown: 50% payable upon acceptance of the case; and the remaining balance upon termination of the case. Complainant paid the respondent PhP 7,500.00.     Prior to preparing the appellant’s brief, respondent demanded payment of PhP 4,000.00. The complainant obliged though it was contrary to the original agreement.     Before filing the appellant's brief, respondent demanded payment of the balance amounting to PhP 3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so, respondent withdraw his appearance as complaint’s co

Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray, Complainant, v. Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis, Respondent A.C. No 10868, 26 January 2016 Facts:     Complainant filed a complaint affidavit before the IBP on 30 July 2007, alleging the respondent filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her signature on the Petition. She also alleged that the respondent signed the said Petition as “Counsel for the Petitioner.” referring to the complainant. The complainant stated the respondent was not her counsel but that of her husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     By pretending to be the counsel of the complainant, the respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. For allowing the use of petition with the forged signature of the complainant, the respondent violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR.     Other acts of the responden

Estrella R. Sanchez, Complainant, v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres, M.D., Respondent A.C. No. 10240, 25 November 2014 Facts:     On 08 February 2007, complainant lend PhP 2,200,000.00 to the respondent. The respondent issued to checks amounting to PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant and promised to pay the loan within a month with interest. After a month’s time, the respondent failed to pay the complainant. The respondent told the complainant to deposit the checks and assured her that the checks will be honored. On 2 May 2008, complainant to deposit the checks to her account, but the same were returned due to ‘Account Closed.’     Despite repeated demands for the last three years, the complainant has yet to pay his obligations  since the complainant sought legal assistance. Formal demand letters were sent by the complainant’s lawyer which the respondent received on 14 August 2008 and 17 November 2008, respectively, and the same proved futile as the respondent failed and refused to pay his ob

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts:     Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.     It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prosp

Constancia I. Valencia, Complainant, v. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, Respondent A.C. No. 1302, A.C. No. 1391, A.C. No. 1543, 30 June 2008 Facts:     This is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of the respondent who was disbarred on 26 April 1991 for falsifying a deed of sale and introduction the same as evidence for his client. From 1993 to 2002, the respondent filed several motions and appeals for reinstatement to the bar. His motions and appeals were accompanied by endorsements of his good moral character by various organizations such as IBP-Pangasinan Chapter; Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of Lingayen and Urdaneta, Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ Association of Pangasinan; Provincial Board of Pangasinan; Rotary Club of Urdaneta; and past National President of the IBP. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law. Held:     Records show that the long period of respondent’s disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014 Facts:     Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous

Facts : Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96 which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This was granted by the court. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the RTC decision was upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order dated 21 February 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court. Hearings were scheduled. On 19 September 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed his entry of appearance and motion for postponement. Complainant alleged that he was surprised by thi

Facts : Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed that on 24 July 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt, the respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left. While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” Judge Baculi ocited him for direct contempt of court for the second time. After his hearings, respondent again shouted in a threatening tone, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not

Facts : Administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5144: People v. Luis Plaza. Plaza was accused of murdering a policeman. Criminal case was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Buyser. Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that evidence presented was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide but not murder. Counsel for Plaza filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail, but Senior State Prosecutor Bagabuyo (who was in charge of the case) objected thereto on the ground that the original charge of murder was not subject to bail (Rules of Court). Judge Buyser inhibited himself from trying the case because of the “harsh insinuation” of Bagabuyo that he “lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate” by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail. Case was transferred to Judge Tan, who fixed the amount of bail at P40,000. Instead of availing of judicial remediess, Bagabuyo ca

Facts: Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent was not the counsel of either party in that case. Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the CA decision should first be presented. To this respondent retorted, “You mean to say, I would have to go to Manila to get a copy?” Complainant replied that respondent may show instead the copy sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that complainant should’ve notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify the respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office, banging the door so loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai!” (“Vulva of your mother, you w

Facts : Cambaliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on the grounds of deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. Deceit : represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing marriage Grossly immoral conduct : disseminated libelous affidavits against a Makati City counselor. Malpractice : allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in her law office. This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a senior partner, 2) an id wherein he signed as an “atty”, 3) appearance in court as counsel. Issue : Was the Respondent in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held : Yes, the respondent was GUILTY of malpractice, specifically, violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01. Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall n

Dolores C. Belleza, Complainant, v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa, Respondent Adm. Case No. 7815 | 23 July 2009 Facts: On 10 November 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000. The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend Chua. On 17 November 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000. She paid the P5,000 balance on 18 November 2004. Both payments were also made thru Chua. On all three occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt. On 21 November 2004, respondent received P18,000 from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son.

Article Explanation Art. 377. Usurpation of a name and surname may be the subject of an action for damages and other relief. Explanation: The right to a name is one of the rights of personality. Usurpation of name implies injury to the interests of the owner of the name – possibility of confusion of identity or the appearance of some family relations between the owner and the usurper. The following are elements of usurpation of a name: (a) that there is an actual use of another’s name by the defendant; (b) that the use is unauthorized; and (c) the use of another’s name is to designate personality or identify a person. It is not necessary to prove actual injury to the owner of the name because there is always the potential harm due to the possibility of confusion of identity. The usurper is liable for damages under Art. 377 and Art. 21 of the Civil Code for contempt (Section 3 [e], Rule 71, Rules of Court). Art. 378. The unauthorized or unlawful use of another pe

Articles 377 and 378. Yasin V. Sharia District Court G.R. No. 94986, 23 February 1995 FACTS: On 5 May 1990, Hatima C. Yasin filed in the Shari'a District Court in Zamboanga City a "Petition to resume the use of maiden name.” The respondent court ordered amendments to the petition as it was not sufficient in form and substance in accordance Rule 103, Rules of Court, regarding the residence of petitioner and the name sought to be adopted is not properly indicated in the title thereof which should include all the names by which the petitioner has been known. Hatima filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order alleging that the petition filed is not covered by Rule 103 of the Rules of Court but is merely a petition to resume the use of her maiden name and surname after the dissolution of her marriage by divorce under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, and after marriage of her former husband to another woman. The respondent court denie