Lex Defender

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