1

LYDIA LABAO-JIMENO vs. ATTY. SAMUEL R. RECTO

(A.C. No. 11179)
Lydia Labao-Jimeno claimed that she engaged the
legal services of Atty. Recto to represent Lozana
Sanchez, a former house helper of the complainant’s
parents. Lydia claimed that she sought the help of
Atty. Recto to protect the interest of the illegitimate
children of Lozana and Lydia’s brother, Verne. Lydia
said that Atty. Recto borrowed money from her, but
failed to give her a collateral as he had promised. She
also claimed that the respondent took the jewelries of
her father without the consent of the family. After
several months, Atty. Recto represented Lozana in the
theft/estafa case filed against Lydia. Lydia likewise
alleged that the respondent harassed a prospective
tenant. Finally, Lydia accused Atty. Recto of using
confidential information provided by the complainant
when Atty. Recto was pursuing the estafa case.

Whether or not, Atty. Samuel R. Recto should be

disbarred for unlawful, dishonest, and immoral conduct.

No, Atty. Samuel R. Recto should not be disbarred and

the instant case should be dismissed for lack of merit.

The practice of law provides that, “lawyers enjoy the

presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations in the
complaint by preponderant evidence.” Moreover, a lawyer
becomes bound to serve his client with full competence, and
committed to attend to its cause with utmost diligence, care
and devotion. The lawyer must be always mindful of the
client’s legal affairs.

In this case, Lydia Labao- Jimeno failed to prove that

she engaged the services of the respondent as her counsel
 2

and the information she provided to Atty. Recto was

confidential. It is highly likely that the money given by Lydia
to Atty. Recto constituted his attorney’s fee. Hence, there’s
no proof that the respondent obtained loans from the
complainant. During the litigation, Atty. Recto explained that
he removed Lydia’s father’s jewelry and gave him to Lydia’s
brother, Herman, who executed an affidavit to prove the
same.

Thus, Atty. Samuel R. Recto is not liable for engaging

in unlawful, dishonest, and immoral conduct due to lack of
merit and the disbarment complaint against him should be
dismissed.

DOLORES DE VERA vs. ATTY. CENON J. NAVARRO

(A.C. No. 12912)

Dolores De Vera and her husband secured the

services of Atty. Cenon J. Navarro to notarize and
prepare the Affidavit of Acknowledgement that her
husband was giving his full consent to use his
surname for his daughter, Donna Belle, who was born
two years before Dolores and Manuel got married.
Years later, Dolores and Donna Belle discovered that
Atty. Navarro failed to furnish the Archive Office of
Malolos City, Bulacan a copy of the Affidavit of
Acknowledgement and Use of Surname.

Whether or not, Atty. Navarro is guilty of violating the

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Yes, Atty. Navarro is guilty of violating the 2004 Rules

on Notarial Practice due to his lack of diligence after he
failed to perform services causing serious injury to his client.
 3

Rule VI on Notarial Practice provides, “a notary public

shall keep, maintain, protect, and provide for lawful
inspection as provided by these Rules, a chronological
official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a
permanently bound book with numbered pages.”

In addition, jurisprudence provides that, “the act of

notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with
substantive public interest.” Moreover, the practice of law
provides that “a notary public should observe utmost care in
performing his duties to preserve public confidence in the
integrity of notarized documents.”

In this case, the document entitled, “Affidavit of

Acknowledgement and Use of Surname” with Doc. No. 27,
Page No. 7, Book No. CXXXI, Series of 2007 which Atty.
Cenon J. Navarro notarized and bore his notarial seal was
not included in the report for the month of August 2017 as
certified and verified by the Office of the Clerk of Court of
the RTC in Malolos City, Bulacan.

Therefore, Atty. Cenon Navarro is guilty of violating the

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he is suspended from
the practice of law for six months and disqualified from
being commissioned as notary public for a period of two
years.

PETER LANCE DILLON vs. ATTY. NAPOLEON C. DE

QUIROZ (A.C. No. 12876)

The complainant engaged the services of the

respondent to represent him in a criminal case for
falsification of Public Documents against Anna Marie
Mapili. He alleged that the respondent repeatedly
failed to communicate the status of the case and did
not answer Dillon’s e-mail. He added that Atty. De
 4

Quiroz did not attend the court hearing and falsified

the Judicial Affidavit of complainant which was
submitted in the said case.

Whether or not, Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz should be

held administratively liable for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he signed the JA for and in
for his client without the requisite authority to do so.

No, Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz should not be held

administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility for lack of merit.
Jurisprudence provides that: “Mere allegation is not evidence
and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given
credence.”

In this matter, there is no sufficient, clear and

convincing evidence to hold Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz
administratively liable. Besides, he was given full power and
authority by Peter Lance Dillon through an SPA to sign and
file the disputed Judicial Affidavit.

Hence, Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz should not be held

administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility due to lack of merit and the case should be
dismissed.

FELICIDAD MALUTE vs. ATTY. JEROME W. SELMO (A.C.

No. 12882)

On the day of mediation conference, the

complainant and her husband saw their counsel
talking to the respondent in side the mediation office.
 5

When the respondent saw the complainant, Atty.

Selmo, without any provocation, shouted, scolded,
berated and humiliated them inside the office. The
complainant’s husband answered Atty. Selmo politely.
However, the respondent shouted back and
threatened to shoot the complainant’s husband.

Whether or not, Atty. Jerome W. Selmo is guilty of

violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Yes, Atty. Jerome W. Selmo is guilty of violating the

Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility due to his unprofessional
conduct.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a

lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.” In
addition, the Lawyer’s Oath states that: “I will support the
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein.”

The practice of law provides that: “When lawyers, in

the performance of their duties, act in a manner that
prejudices not only the rights of their client, but also of their
colleagues and offends due administration of justice,
appropriate disciplinary measures and proceedings are
available such as reprimand, suspension or even disbarment
to rectify their wrongful acts.”

Obviously, Atty. Selmo violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility by shouting at,
scolding and humiliating the complainant in public. He also
threatened the complainant’s husband. Moreover, Atty.
 6

Selmo’s failure to follow the IBP’s order disrespected the

officials.

As a result, Atty. Jerome W. Selmo is guilty and should

be reprimanded for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule
8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
should also be sternly warned that a repetition of the same
act will warrant a more severe penalty.

ADELITA S. VILLAMOR vs. ATTY. ELY GALLAND A.

JUMAO-AS (A.C. No. 8111)

The complainant alleged that Felipe Retubado and

Atty. Jumao-as coaxed her to set up a lending
company. She said that, Retubado volunteered to
handle the day-to-day operation while the respondent
would handle the legal matters. After several months,
Villamor received the copy of the Certificate of
Registration for their company, AEV Villamor Credit,
Inc. Atty. Jumao-as and Retubado left AEV and joined
Yu’s 3E’s Debt Equity Grant Co. The two tried to
persuade the collectors of AEV to abandon the
company and remit their AEV collections to 3E’s Debt
Equity as payment for AEV’s debt. Worse, Atty.
Jumao-as sent a letter to Villamor, for and in behalf of
Yu, demanding the payment of debt.

Whether or not, Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as is guilty

of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Yes, Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility (CPR) for representing conflicting
interests.
 7

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that,

“a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients.” Specifically, a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts.

According to the proper practice of law, “there is

conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties.” Furthermore,
jurisprudence provides that: “In determining whether a
lawyer is guilty of violating the rules on conflict on interest
under the CPR, it is essential to determine whether: “ (1) “a
lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf
of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for
the other client;”(2) “ the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspension of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty;” and (3) “a lawyer would be called
upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or
previous employment

In this case, there is conflict of interest because: (a)

Atty. Jumao-as admitted that Debbie Yu was also his client;
(b) when Atty. Jumao-as breached the trust and confidence
of Vilamor when he deceitfully organized the Yu’s 3E’s Debt
Equity Grant Co. in direct competition of AEV Villamor
Credit, Inc. and persuading his collectors into leaving AEV
Villamor and remitting their collections to 3E’s Debt Equity
Grant Co as payment of debt.

Therefore, Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as is guilty of

violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
suspended from the practice of law for two years and
warned that a repetition of the same acts will be dealt with
more severe punishment.
 8

MICHELLE A. BUENAVENTURA vs. ATTY. DANY B.

GILLE (A.C. No. 7446)

Michelle consulted Atty. Gille about a property

mortgage and both agreed for the service fee of the
respondent. Subsequently, the respondent borrowed
money from Michelle and gave as collateral a copy of
Transfer Certificate of Title and a postdated check.
Upon checking with the Register of Deeds, Michelle
and her father discovered that the TCT was a forgery.
Michelle then demanded that Atty Gille return the
borrowed amount, but the respondent failed to pay.
Instead, he issued a postdated check which was later
dishonored by the bank because the account was
actually closed. Michelle filed a petition for disbarment
against the respondent, but the latter failed and
ignored the mandatory conference set by the IBP.

Whether or not, Atty. Dany B. Gille is guilty of Gross

Misconduct.

Yes, Atty. Gille is guilty of Gross Misconduct for several

actions that violated the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

“A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case
or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money
to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client.” In addition, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Also, the
Lawyer’s Oath demands that a lawyer “should obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein.”
 9

Moreover, jurisprudence provides that: “A lawyer must

remain a competent, honorable, and reliable individual in
whom the public reposes confidence. Any gross misconduct
that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him
unfit to continue in the practice of law.” Lastly, the practice
of law provides that, “a member of the Bar must give due
respect to the IBP which is the national organization of all
the members of the legal profession.”

In this case, Atty Gille committed Gross Misconduct for

the following acts:
a.) borrowing money from his client;
b.) presenting a spurious title of a mortgaged
property;
c.) refusing to pay his debt despite demand;
d.) issuing a worthless check; and
e.) failing to comply with the orders of the IBP

Thus, Atty. Dany B. Gille is guilty of violating the Code of

Professional Responsibility and of the Lawyer’s Oath. He
should be disbarred from the practice of law and his name
stricken off from the Roll of Attorney.

ATTY. SOCRATES G. MARANAN vs. FRANCISCO

DOMAGOSO (A.C. No. 12777)

Atty. Maranan filed a criminal case before the

Ombudsman against Vice Mayor Francisco “Isko
Moreno” Domagoso for Falsification of Public
Documents and violation of Section 3 of RA No. 3019.
In defense, Domagoso claimed that he signed the
consultancy contracts which was notarized by Atty.
Maranan. The respondent denied having authored the
said contracts and his signature was forged. Also, he
averred that the consultancy contract does not appear
 10

in any of his monthly notarial reports that he regularly

submitted to the RTC.

Whether or not, grounds exist to hold Atty. Socrates G.

Maranan administratively liable.

Yes, grounds exist to hold Atty. Socrates G. Maranan

administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.

Rule VII of the 2004 Notarial Practice states that “every

notary public shall have his own notarial seal, which shall
have the name of the city or province and the word
“Philippines,” and his own name on the margin and the roll
of attorney’s number on its face. The said seal shall only be
possessed by the notary public.”

Jurisprudence provides that: “A notary public is

empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most
common of which are the acknowledgement and affirmation
of documents or instruments. In the performance of these
notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the
significance of the notarial seal affixed on the documents.”
Likewise, the notarial seal converts a document from a
private to a public instrument, after which it may be
presented as evidence without need for proof of its
genuineness and due execution.

During the hearing, Atty. Maranan denied having

authored or notarized the consultancy contracts, and
claimed that his signature was forged. However, he cannot
claim full deniability and be exculpated from administrative
liability because the contracts bore his notarial seal.
 11

Hence, grounds exist to hold Atty. Socrates G. Maranan

administratively liable and guilty of violating the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice. He should be suspended from the
practice of law for six months and disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public for two years.

ALBERTO LOPEZ vs. ATTY. ROSENDO RAMOS (A.C. No.

12081)

Lopez alleged that he was the vendee of a parcel

of land in Tondo, Manila that was originally covered
under a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of
Aurea Munar Masangkay. Subsequently, Lopez
discovered that thru a forged deed of sale notarized
by the respondent, a new TCT for the same parcel of
land was issued to Placida Ronquillo. In the criminal
case filed by Masangkay before the Manila RTC, it was
shown that Benjamin, one of Masangkay’s sons,
forcibly took the original TCT from his brother and
went to the respondent’s office accompanied by a
woman who posed as his mother and signed the deeds
of sale. Masangkay affirmed that her signature was
falsified. The respondent prepared and notarized two
deeds of sale for the purpose of helping Benjamin and
his alleged mother to avoid the paying capital gains
tax.

Whether or not, Atty. Rosendo Ramos should be held

administratively liable for gross negligence in violating the
Notarial Law, Code of Professional Responsibility and
Lawyer’s Oath

Yes, Atty. Rosendo Ramos should be held

administratively liable for gross negligence in violating the
Notarial Law, Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath when he notarized the forged deeds of sale.
 12

Jurisprudence provides that: “A notary public should

not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it
are the same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth
of what are stated therein. Otherwise, the notary public
would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature
of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the
document is party’s free act or deed.” Furthermore, the
practice of law provides that, “the act of notarization is
imbued with substantive public interest wherein a private
document is converted into a public document, which results
in document’s admissibility in evidence without further proof
of its authenticity.” Furthermore, the legal precedent
provides that, “a lawyer is expected at all times to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain
from any act of omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal
profession.”
In addition, Rule IV of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
puts that a notary public shall not perform any notarial act
for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the
appropriate fee if the notary knew or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral. Moreover, Canon 1 of the CPR provides that: “A
lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.”
Specifically, a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system. Lastly, the Lawyer’s Oath states that “a
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court.”

In this case, Atty. Ramos committed gross negligence

in performing his duties as a notary public when he: First,
notarized a deed of sale without ascertaining beforehand the
identity of the vendor; Second, the deeds of sale which he
prepared and notarized bore forged signatures; Third, he
 13

prepared and notarized two deeds of sale to minimize the

payment of capital gains tax.

Therefore, Atty. Rosendo Ramos should be held liable

for gross negligence and found guilty of violating the
Notarial Law. He should be suspended from the practice of
law for two years. In addition, his present notarial
commission, if any, should be revoked and he should be
disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for a
period of two years. He should also be sternly warned that
any similar act would be dealt with more severe punishment.

ATTY. JOSEPH VINCENT T. GO vs. ATTY. VIRGILIO T.

TERUEL (A.C. No. 11119)

Attorneys Go and Teruel have been engaged in a

legal tussle with both accusing the other of violating
certain Canons of the CPR. On June 21, 2011, Rev. Fr.
Antonio P. Reyes initiated a complaint for grave
professional misconduct against Atty. Go. Atty. Teruel
prepared the compliant of Fr. Reyes against Atty. Go.
On June 22, 2011, Atty. Teruel filed a Rejoinder to
Reply and Counter-Complaint against Atty. Go
accusing him of violating Section 20(b) and (f), Rules
of Court, and Canon 11 as well as Rules 11.03 and
11.04 of the CPR. Atty. Go alleged that Atty Teruel’s
Counter-Complaint and Fr. Reyes complaint were the
same and he violated the rule against forum shopping.

Whether or not, Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel violated Rules

12.02 and 12.04 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR.

Yes, Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel violated Rules 12.02 and

12.04 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR for violating the rule
against forum shopping.
 14

The Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly

provides that “a lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising
from the same cause.” In addition, a lawyer shall not unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
Court process. It must be emphasized that, a lawyer should
not trifle with judicial processes and resort to forum
shopping because they have the duty to assist the courts in
administration of justice.

The practice of law provides that: “Forum shopping

exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another.” Specifically, the essence of forum
shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause or action, either simultaneously
or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment.

On this matter, Atty. Teruel was the counsel of Fr.

Reyes in his complaint against Atty. Go. He had prepared
and filed both administrative actions with full knowledge that
they have the same cause of action and contained nearly
exactly the same allegations.

Hence, Atty. Teruel is guilty of violating Rules 12.02

and 12.04 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR. He should be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
months.

JUANA A. CASTILLO, IRENEO A. VILLAR, and

BIBGENROSE T. VILLAR vs. Atty. ANGELITO D. CUETO
and PROS. MIGUEL NOEL T. OCAMPO (A.C. No. 9994)
 15

Mary Jane Castillo together with her live-in

partner were arrested in a buy-bust operation and
both were subjected to inquest proceedings. Juana
approached Atty Cueto to act as counsel for Mary Jane
on May, 2013. In June 2013, Pros. Ocampo issued
three informations against Mary Jane for violation of
RA 9165. Ocampo said that the delay was caused by
prosecutorial and clerical understaffing. These
Informations were received by the RTC in July 2013.
On the same day, Juana filed a disbarment case
against the respondents. Juana contacted Cueto in
September but did not tell him that she had filed a
disbarment case against him. Atty.Cueto filed his
Entry of Appearance in-behalf of Mary Jane at the
Calamba City, RTC and defended Mary Jane even after
receiving the notice of the disbarment case from the
Supreme Court. He eventually secured an acquittal for
Mary Jane.

Whether or not, Atty. Cueto and Pros. Ocampo should

be disbarred for, respectively, failure to render service as
counsel for Mary Jane Castillo, and for undue delay in
resolving the complaint against Mary Jane.

For lack of merit, the answer is no- Atty. Cueto and

Pros. Ocampo should not be disbarred, for, respectively,
failure to render service as counsel for Mary Jane Castillo,
and for undue delay in resolving the complaint against Mary
Jane.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that,

“A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.”

Jurisprudence provides that, “court will not hesitate to

mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who
 16

are shown to have failed to live up their sworn duties, but

neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to them
when the accusation against them is not indubitably
proven.”

On this issue, Atty. Angelito D. Cueto proved his

professionalism as a lawyer by defending Mary even after he
had already received the notice of the disbarment case from
the Supreme Court. He eventually secured an acquittal for
Mary Jane. Meanwhile Pros. Ocampo should not be solely
blamed for the undue delay in resolving the complain
against Mary jane because of prosecutorial and clerical
understaffing.

Thus, Atty. Cueto and Pros. Ocampo’s disbarment case

should be dismissed for lack of merit.

EDRALYN B. BERZOLA vs. ATTY MARLON O.

BALDOVINO (A.C. No. 12815)
The RTC, Branch 67 of Paniqi, Tarlac declared the
marriage of Lawrence Antonio and Edralyn Berzola
void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the
part of the husband. Upon checking the record of the
case, Edralyn learned that: (a) her husband was
examined by unlicensed psychologist; (b) Lawrence
address was wrong; (c) her signature was for the
receipt of the summon was forged; and (d) Lawrence
was not in the Philippines during the legal process to
nullify their marriage. Edralyn filed a disbarment case
against Atty. Baldovino for conspiring with Lawrence
to nullify their marriage by using fraudulence. During
the litigation of the said case, Lawrence filed an
affidavit that he never participated in the proceedings,
but merely relied on the representation of his counsel.
 17

Whether or not Atty. Marlon O. Baldovino should be

disbarred for violating the CPR and 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.

Yes, Atty. Marlon O. Baldovino should be disbarred for

violating the CPR and 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice due to
falsification, use of falsified documents and mocking the
Judicial Process.

Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, “a

lawyer must exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.”
Moreover, “a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to
misinterpret himself or to impersonate another. In addition,
the 20014 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that, “a notary
public should not notarize a document unless the signatory
to the document is in notary’s presence personally at the
time of notarization, and personally known to the notary
public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of
identity.” Additionally, the law provides that, “a member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of superior court, or
for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority to do so.”

Jurisprudence provides that: “A lawyer must represent

his client within the bounds of the law lest he transgresses
his corresponding duties to the court, the bar, and the
public. Any act on his part which visibly obstruct, perverts,
impeded or degrades the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary actions.”
Furthermore, the practice of law provides that, “the notary
public purpose is to verify the genuineness of the signature
 18

and to ascertain that the document is the signatory’s free

act deed. If the signatory is not acting of his or her own free
will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a
notarial act.” Besides, the supreme penalty of disbarment is
meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court and member of the bar.” Lastly, the court will
not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the
esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls
for it.

On this matter, Atty. Baldovino violated the CPR when

he represented Lawrence in the case for nullity of marriage
despite his absence in the Philippines and presented another
person to act on Lawrence’s behalf during the proceedings
and an expert witness who does not have the required
qualifications.

Thus, Atty. Marlon O. Baldovino should be disbarred for

falsification, use of falsified documents and mocking the
Judicial Process. His name should be stricken from the Roll
of Attorneys and Perpetually Disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public.

PRUDENCIO B. PORTUGUESE, JR. vs. ATTY. JERRY R.

CENTRO (A.C. No. 12875)

Atty. Centro was the counsel of Prudencio B.

Portuguese in a Civil Case. Portuguese alleged that
Atty Centro failed to update him on the status of the
case. Portuguese added that Centro did not promptly
submit the motions and pleadings required by the
court to protect Portuguese’s interests. Worse,
Portuguese claimed that Centro lied when he told him
that he had already filed a certain motion required by
the court. When Portuguese confronted him about
lapses in relation to the case, Atty. Centro replied that
 19

there was nothing more he could do and that he was

giving up the case for good. Lastly, he disregarded the
directive to file his answer to the complaint against
him set by the IBP.

Whether or not, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is legally

responsible of gross negligence, abandonment, and
dereliction of duty.

Yes, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is legally responsible of gross

negligence, abandonment, and dereliction of duty for
violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.

Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: “A lawyer

shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.”
In addition, the practice or law provides that, “a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.” Moreover, a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable. Lastly, A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client's request for information.
Jurisprudence provides that: “calls upon a member of
the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the
Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession and the proper and honest administration of
justice by purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to
the office of an attorney. Furthermore, as a member of the
bar, the lawyer must maintain the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession by refraining from committing acts
which might diminish in any degree the confidence of the
 20

public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the

profession."

Regarding this case, Atty Centro unfortunately departed

from his sworn oath by committing the following acts: 1)
failing to file a Memorandum and even misrepresenting
about filing it; 2) failing to inform Portuguese of the RTC's
Decision; 3) failing to protect Portuguese's interest against
the adverse RTC's Decision; 4) failing to inform Portuguese
of the Motion for Execution, the scheduled hearing, and the
resolution granting the said motion; and 5) failing to file an
Answer to the instant Complaint

As a result, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is guilty of gross

negligence, abandonment, and dereliction of duty. He should
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three
years and the repetition of the same act should be dealt with
more severe punishment.

ROSALINA TAGHOY, ET AL., VS. ATTY. CONSTANTINE

TECSON III (A.C. No. 12446)

The complainant engaged the services of Atty.

Tecson as counsel in an ejectment case filed against
them by a certain Rayos. After evaluating the case,
Atty. Tecson opined that Rayos’ TCT was questionable.
He advised the complainant to file a separate case to
annul Rayos’ TCT. After the partial payment of the
professional fees, Atty. Tecson failed to file the
position paper in the ejectment case despite the
court’s order, as well as the appeal memorandum
which caused the dismissal of the complainants’
appeal to the ejectment case. He also did not file the
case for annulment of Rayos TCT.
 21

Whether or not, Atty. Constantine Tecson III violated

the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Yes, Atty. Tecson violated the CPR due to his

negligence to protect his clients’ cause.

The Code of Professional Responsibility states that, “a

lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render his
liable.” Additionally, “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
repose in him.”

The practice of law provides that: “Lawyers are not

obliged to advocate for every person who requests to be
their client. In addition, the erring lawyers committed
negligence when he did not file the appropriate criminal
proceedings despite receipt of the acceptance fees.” Also,
“the erring lawyer failed to file the appeal memorandum,
which prejudiced his clients, and he did not inform the court
of his intent not to file the pleadings to prevent delay in the
disposition of the case.”

With regards to this case, Attorney Tecson violated his

duty when he did not file the case for title annulment after
receiving his professional fees. He also failed to file the
complainants’ position paper in the ejectment case despite
the court’s order, as well as the appeal memorandum, which
caused the dismissal of the complainants’ appeal to the
ejectment case.

Thus, Atty. Constantine Tecson III is guilty of violating

the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of three
months. The repetition of the same act shall be dealt with
more severe punishment.
 22

JOHN PAUL KIENER vs. ATTY. RICARDO R. AMORES

(A.C. No. 9417)

John Paul was the accused in a criminal case for

Estafa against Pado’s Divecamp Resort Corporation
which was represented by Atty. Amores. He notarized
the Secretary’s Certificate that was attached to the
Complaint-Affidavit filed in the criminal case. John
Paul claimed that the said certificate was defective
and improperly notarized because the signature of the
secretary, Irene, was printed or scanned. He also
asserted that the secretary could not have been
physically present before Amores to sign the
documents.

Whether or not, Atty. Ricardo R. Amores violated the

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Yes, Atty. Ricardo R. Amores violated the 2004 Rules

on Notarial Practice due to improper notarization.

Jurisprudence provides that, “a notary public must

observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public’s
confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined.” Also, a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the person who signed the same is the
very same person who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what
stated therein.

In this case, Atty. Amores failed to observe the

requirement of physical presence and ascertain the
genuineness of Irene’s signature when he notarized the
 23

document and that there was no evidence to show that

Irene was physically present. He also failed to indicate the
serial number of his notarial commission in the concluding
part of the notarial certificate on the Secretary’s Certificate
as required by the rules.

Atty. Ricardo R. Amores is guilty of violating the 2004

Rules on Notarial Practice. As to the penalty, his notarial
commission should be revoked and he should be disqualified
from being reappointed as Notary Public for a period of two
years.

REYNALDO TABUCOL vs. ATTY RODRIGO DOMINGO,

JR.(A.C. No. 8005)

Complainant alleged that he engaged the services

of the law firm of Domingo & Dizon in the illegal
dismissal case he filed against The Peninsula Manila.
Domingo was the managing partner of the firm and
Mendoza represented the complainant in the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Complainant
learned that the labor case was dismissed, he claimed
that his signature was forged in the Deed of Release
and Quitclaim and denied receiving the money as a
settlement of the labor case. After the labor case was
dismissed, Tabucol asserted that he could no longer
contact both Domingo and Mendoza. Twelve years
after the labor case was dismissed, Mendoza was
already a judge at the MeTC of Manila. The
administrative complaint against her was passed on to
the Executive Judge asked the NBI to verify Tabucol’s
signature on the Quitclaim document. The NBI
confirmed that Tabucol’s signature was genuine.
Mendoza also affirmed that she saw Tabucol received
a money for settlement.
 24

Whether or not, Atty Rodrigo Domingo, Jr. is guilty of

gross misconduct.

No, Atty Rodrigo Domingo, Jr. is not guilty of gross

misconduct because the same complaint filed against his law
firm colleague, Atty. Glenda Mendoza was dismissed for lack
of merit.

Jurisprudence provides that, “in administrative

proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainants who must prove their allegations by
substantial evidence.”

In this case, Reynaldo Tabucol failed to substantiate his

allegation that the respondent conspired to have his labor
case dismissed by forging his signature on the Deed of
Release and Quitclaim. The NBI confirmed that the
complainant’s signature on the Quitclaim document was
genuine.
Therefore, Atty.Rodrigo Domingo is not guilty of Gross
Misconduct and the case against him should be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit.
25