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