[A.C. No. 2884. January 28, 1998] EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P588,000.

00) which sum of money

IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC, complainant, vs. ATTY. ORLANDO A. RAYOS, was withdrawn by the parties from the Philippine National Bank
respondent. on said date.
DECISION
WHEREAS, the said amount was deposited by (respondent)
PUNO, J.: with the consent of (complainant) with the UNION BANK, J.P.
Rizal Branch, Makati, Metro Manila.
This case stemmed from a petition for disbarment filed with this Court
WHEREAS, upon mutual agreement of the parties, they have
by Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac against her nephew, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, a
agreed as they hereby agree on the following terms for the purpose
legal practitioner in Metro Manila, for "his failure to adhere to the standards
of disposing of the above sum, to wit:
of mental and moral fitness set up for members of the bar."i
1. Of the sum of P588,000.00 received in trust,
The records show that in January 1985, respondent induced
(respondent) shall return only the sum of P400,000.00 to
complainant who was then 85 years old to withdraw all her bank deposits
(complainant) in the following manner:
and entrust them to him for safekeeping. Respondent told her that if she
withdraws all her money in the bank, they will be excluded from the estate a) P100,000.00 upon execution of this
of her deceased husband and his other heirs will be precluded from agreement;
inheriting part of it.
b) P200,000.00 on or before October 19,
Acting on respondent's suggestion, complainant preterminated all her 1985, to be covered by postdated check;
time deposits with the Philippine National Bank on January 18, 1985. She
withdrew P588,000.00. c) P100,000.00 on or before November 19,
1985, to be covered by a postdated check.
Respondent then advised complainant to deposit the money with Union
Bank where he was working. He also urged her to deposit the money in his 2. (Respondent) hereby undertakes and guarantees
name to prevent the other heirs of her husband from tracing the same. that at the time the aforesaid postdated checks fall due,
the same should be backed up with sufficient funds on a
Complainant heeded the advice of respondent. On January 22, 1985, best efforts basis.
respondent deposited the amount of P588,000.00 with Union Bank under the
name of his wife in trust for seven beneficiaries, including his son. The 3. That the remaining balance of P188,000.00,
maturity date of the time deposit was May 22, 1985. (respondent) hereby acknowledges the same as his
indebtedness to (complainant) to be paid by the former
On May 21, 1985, complainant made a demand on respondent to return when able or at his option. (Complainant) however
the P588,000.00 plus interest. Respondent told her that he has renewed the assures (respondent) that she will not institute any
deposit for another month and promised to return the whole amount collection suit against (respondent) (sic), neither will she
including interest on June 25, 1985. Respondent, however, failed to return the transmit the same by way of testamentary succession to
money on June 25, 1985. her heirs, neither are (respondent's) heirs liable.
On August 16, 1985, respondent informed complainant that he could 4. That the parties have executed this agreement
only return P400,000.00 to be paid on installment. Complainant acceded to with the view of restoring their previous cordial filial
respondent's proposal as she was already old and was in dire need of money. relationship."ii
On the same date, respondent and complainant executed a In accordance with the memorandum of agreement, respondent issued
memorandum of agreement stating: to complainant the following checks:
"WHEREAS, on January 22, 1985, (complainant) entrusted for 1. UCPB Check No. 487974 dated August 19, 1985 in the amount of
safekeeping to (respondent) the sum of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY P100,000.00;
 2. UCPB Check No. 487975 dated October 19, 1985 in the amount of Review Acts of Administratrix as a Prelude for Formal Motion to (sic) her
P200,000; Discharge" in Special Proceedings No. 5544 for the settlement of the estate of
complainant's husband, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen,
3. UCPB Check No. 487976 dated November 19, 1985 in the amount
Pangasinan.iv Respondent filed the pleading although he was not a party to
of P100,000.00.
the case.
Complainant was not able to encash UCPB Check No. 487974 as it was
Finally, on May 19, 1986, respondent indicted complainant for
dishonored due to insufficient funds.
"falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents under
Respondent, nonetheless, asserted that he was not duty-bound to fund Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code" for allegedly making untruthful
the check because under paragraph 2 of the memorandum of agreement, he statements in her petition for appointment as administratrix of the estate of
only guaranteed that the checks shall be "backed up with sufficient funds on her deceased husband.v
a best efforts basis." This prompted the other relatives of respondent and
Thus, in June 1986, complainant filed with this Court a complaint to
complainant to intervene in the brewing dispute between the two. They
disbar respondent on two grounds: (1) that respondent employed clever
begged respondent to pay his obligation to complainant. Heeding their plea,
scheme to defraud complainant, and (2) that respondent filed frivolous cases
respondent replaced UCPB Check No. 487974 with two new checks, one for
against complainant to harass her.
P64,800.00 and another for P35,200.00. Complainant was able to encash the
first check but not the second because it was dishonored by the drawee bank. Respondent subsequently filed a complaint for disbarment against
The remaining checks, UCPB Check No. 487975 and UCPB Check No. 487976, complainant's counsel, Atty. Abelardo Viray. The complaint cited four causes
were likewise dishonored by the drawee bank for lack of funds. of action: (1) assisting client to commit tax fraud; (2) use of unorthodox
collection method; (3) ignorance of the law; and (4) subornation of perjury. vi
On November 15, 1985, complainant filed a complaint for estafa against
respondent and a corresponding information was filed against him by the Both disbarment cases were consolidated and referred to the Office of
provincial fiscal. the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
Respondent thereafter made a proposal to complainant for an amicable The cases were transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
settlement. To pay his debt, respondent offered to complainant two second for investigation and disposition pursuant to Section 20 Rule 139-B which
hand cars and cash amounting to P40,000.00. Complainant refused the offer took effect on June 1, 1988.
because she needed cash to provide for her daily needs.
After investigation, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
The records also show that respondent filed several suits against recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two
complainant. years. It also recommended the dismissal of the complaint to disbar Atty.
Viray for lack of merit.vii
First, in February 1985, respondent filed a criminal case for estafa
against complainant. It appears that respondent has previously told the On January 27, 1996, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed
tenants of a parcel of land owned by complainant that she had promised to Resolution No. XII-96-22 stating:
sell them the land and that she had authorized him to negotiate with them.
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
He obtained from the tenants advance payment for the lots they were
and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
occupying. Respondent then prepared a special power of attorney iii
Investigating Commissioner in the above entitled case, hereinmade
authorizing him to sell the land and asked complainant to sign it.
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
Complainant, however, refused to sign because she did not intend to make
recommendation therein to be supported by the evidence on
respondent her attorney-in-fact. Hence, the tenants sued respondent for
record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent Atty.
estafa. Respondent, in turn, sued complainant for estafa for allegedly
Orlando A. Rayos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
reneging on her promise to sell the land.
for two (2) years and the complaint against Atty. Abelardo V.
Then, on April 5, 1986, respondent filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Viray is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit." viii
 On June 6, 1996, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to
regard to Administrative Case No. 2884.ix The Board of Governors of the IBP, practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct
however, denied the motion in Resolution No. XII-96-193.x as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a
On September 15, 1997, respondent filed with this Court a Motion to Lift
party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens
Suspension for Two Years, alleging that complainant has executed an
may have in the proper administration of justice. xiv Hence, if the evidence on
affidavit withdrawing the complaint for disbarment. xi
record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the
We deny the motion of respondent. desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. In the instant
case, it has been sufficiently proved that respondent has engaged in deceitful
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: conduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of
deceitful conduct." this decision be attached to respondent's record in the Bar Confidant's Office
Rule 1.03 of the same Code, on the other hand, provides: and furnished the IBP and all our courts.

"A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage SO ORDERED.
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause."
Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as
his oath as an attorney when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting
to him all her money, and later refused to return the same despite demand.
Respondent's wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits
he filed against complainant to compel her to withdraw the disbarment case
she filed against him. Indeed, respondent's deceitful conduct makes him
unworthy of membership in the legal profession. The nature of the office of a
lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the
profession.xii
Considering the depravity of respondent's offense, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP to be too mild. Such offense calls for the severance
of respondent's privilege to practice law not only for two years, but for life.
The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed
by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts
borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct
has been duly proven.xiii This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense
a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer
is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
A.C. No. 5948 January 22, 2003 Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal
(Formerly A.M. No. CBD-354) owners of those certain parcels of land, more particularly as
GAMALIEL ABAQUETA, complainant, follows . . .
vs.
ATTY. BERNARDITO A. FLORIDO, respondent. The "parcels of land" referred to as conjugal property of complainant and
RESOLUTION Milagros Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcels of land in Special
Proceedings No. 3971-R which respondent, as lawyer of complainant, alleged
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: as the "sole and exclusive properties" of complainant. In short, respondent
lawyer made allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-11453 which were contrary to
This is an administrative complaint 1 against Atty. Bernardito A. Florido and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for complainant in
filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Special Proceedings No. 3971-R.
Discipline, praying that appropriate sanctions be imposed on respondent for
representing conflicting interests. Complainant further averred that respondent admitted he was never
authorized by the former to appear as counsel for complainant's ex-wife in
Complainant is a Filipino by birth who had acquired American citizenship. Civil Case No. CEB-11453; that respondent failed to indicate in the
He resides at 15856 N. 15th Way, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, U.S.A. Respondent Complaint the true and correct address of herein complainant, which
is a practicing lawyer based in Cebu City. respondent knew as far back as August 2, 1990, when he wrote a letter to the
complainant at the said address.7 Consequently, complainant failed to
On November 28, 1983, complainant engaged the professional services of receive summons and was declared in default in Civil Case No. CEB-11453.
respondent trough his attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, to represent While the order of default was eventually set aside, complainant incurred
him in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R, entitled, "In the Matter of the Intestate expenses to travel to the Philippines, which were conservatively estimated at
Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaqueta,2 Susana Uy Trazo, petitioner" before the $10,000.00. He argues that respondent's conduct constitute professional
Regional Trial court of Cebu.3 misconduct and malpractice as well as trifling with court processes.

Accordingly, respondent entered his appearance in Special Proceedings No. In his defense, respondent claims in his Answer 8 that he always acted in
3971-R as counsel for herein complainant.4 Subsequently, he filed good faith in his professional relationship with complainant in spite of the
complainant's "Objections and Comments to Inventory and Accounting," fact that they have not personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the
registering complainant's objection — Complaint on information and documents supplied by Mrs. Charito Y.
Baclig, complainant's sister-in-law and attorney-in-fact, indicating that he
. . . to the inclusion of the properties under Items 1 to 5 was sole and exclusive owner of the properties. This was sometime in
contained in the inventory of the administratrix dated November 1983. No affidavit of adjudication was ever furnished respondent
November 9, 1983. These properties are the sole and exclusive by complainant and this was apparently suppressed because it would show
properties of the oppositor per the latest tax declarations that the properties formed part of the estate.
already marked as Exhibits "2", "3", "4", "5" and "6" in the
Formal Offer of Exhibits by oppositor in writing dated Eight years later, in November 1991, long after Special Proceedings No. 3971-
August 17, 1983 x x x .5 R was settled and the attorney-client relationship between complainant and
respondent was terminated, Mrs. Milagros Abaqueta through Mrs. Baclig,
Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money engaged his services to file Civil Case No. CEB-11453. Mrs. Baclig presented
against complainant, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and entitled, to him a deed of absolute sale dated July 7, 1975,9 showing that the
"Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona."6 Respondent properties subject hereof were not complainant's exclusive property but his
signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap Abaqueta, conjugal property with his wife, the same having been acquired during the
averring, inter alia, that:
subsistence of their marriage. Thus, in all good faith, respondent alleged in prohibition against representing conflicting interests and recommended that
the complaint that said properties were conjugal assets of the spouses. he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.

Respondent further pointed out that his law firm handles on the average We find the recommendation well-taken.
eighty new court cases annually and personally interviews four or five
clients, prospective clients and/or witnesses daily except Saturdays and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that
Sundays. It regularly closes to the public at 7:00 p.m., but work continues —
sometimes until 8:30 p.m. This has been going on for the last twenty-five
years out of respondent's thirty-three years of private practice. The absence RULE 15.03. — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
of personal contact with complainant and the lapse of eight years resulted in interests except by written consent of all concerned given
the oversight of the respondent's memory that complainant was a former after a full disclosure of the facts.
client. Furthermore, the caption of the Special Proceeding was not in the
name of complainant but was entitled, "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of There is a conflict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of two
Bonifacia Payahay Abaqueta." or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it
is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it
Respondent expressed regret over the oversight and averred that for the other client.14 In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will
immediately after discovering that the formerly represented complainant in be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.15
Special Proceeding No. 3971-R, he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for
plaintiff, which was granted by the trial court.10 He denied any malice in his There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new
acts and alleged that it is not in his character to do malice or falsehood retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect
particularly in the exercise of his profession. his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any
In his Comments/Observations on Respondent's Answer,11 complainant knowledge acquired through their connection.16
averred that respondent's conduct was geared towards insuring a court
victory for Milagros Yap in Civil Case No. CEB-11453, wherein he As pointed out by the investigating commissioner, respondent does not deny
deliberately stated that complainant's address was 9203 Riverside Lodge that he represented complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. He also
Drive, Houston, Texas 77083, U.S.A., when he knew fully well that does not deny that he is the lawyer of Milagros Yap Abaqueta in Civil Case
complainant's true and correct address was c/o V.A. Hospital, 7th Street & No. CEB-11453, filed against complainant and involving the same properties
Italian School Road, Phoenix, Arizona, 85013, U.S.A. By falsely stating and which were litigated in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. Respondent also
concealing his true and correct address, respondent eventually succeeded in admitted that he did not secure the consent of complainant before he agreed
obtaining a default judgment in favor of his client. to act as Milagros Yap Abaqueta's lawyer in Civil Case No. CEB-11453.

During the pendency of these proceedings before the IBP, it appeared that The reasons proffered by respondent are hardly persuasive to excuse his
respondent's son got married to the daughter of IBP National President clear representation of conflicting interests in this case. First, the
Arthur D. Lim. Thus, Atty. Lim inhibited himself from participating in the investigating commissioner observed that the name "Gamaliel Abaqueta" is
resolution of the case.12 Subsequently, a Resolution was issued requiring the not a common name. Once heard, it will surely ring a bell in one's mind if he
IBP to elevate the entire records of the case within thirty (30) days from came across the name again.
notice.13
In this case, respondent actively prosecuted the cause of complainant in
The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not respondent Special Proceedings No. 3971-R, such that it would be impossible for
violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent not to have recalled his name.
investigating Commissioner found that respondent clearly violated the
Second, assuming arguendo that respondent's memory was indeed faulty, still itself prove malice on the part of respondent. A new address was furnished
it is incredible that he could not recall that complainant was his client, by Milagros Yap Abaqueta days before the complaint was filed. Respondent
considering that Mrs. Charito Baclig, who was complainant's attorney-in-fact had no reason to doubt the correctness of the address of the complainant
and the go-between of complainant and respondent in Special Proceedings given to him by Milagros Yap Abaqueta considering that she was
No. 3971-R, was the same person who brought Milagros Yap Abaqueta to complainant's wife.
him. Even a person of average intelligence would have made the connection
between Mrs. Baclig and complainant under such circumstances. WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for Three (3) months. He is further ADMONISHED to
Lastly, the fact that the subject matter of Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards
Special Proceedings No. 3971-R are the same properties could not have his clients and the court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
escaped the attention of respondent. With such an abundance of offense will be dealt with more severely.
circumstances to aid respondent's memory, it simply strains credulity for
him to have conveniently forgotten his past engagement as complainant's SO ORDERED
lawyer. What rather appears, given the prevailing facts of this case, is that he
chose to ignore them on the assumption that the long period of time
spanning his past and present engagement would effectively blur the
memories of the parties to such a discrepancy.

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate

for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to
decline such employment,17 subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.18 Once he agrees to take up the cause of the
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.19 He must serve the client with
competence and diligence20 and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.21

A lawyer May not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as

counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client22
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client
which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. 23 Indeed, as we
stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera,24 "The relation of attorney and client is based on
trust, so that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery,
should be avoided."25

Credence cannot, however, be given to the charge that respondent

fraudulently and maliciously falsified the true and correct address of the
complainant notwithstanding respondent's knowledge thereof. Lawyers
normally do not have knowledge of the personal circumstances of a party in
a case and usually rely on the information supplied by their clients. The fact
that respondent sent a letter to complainant at the latter's correct address26
sixteen months before the filing of Civil Case No. CEB-11453 does not by
A.C. No. 5246 March 20, 2003 herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts
EDGAR O. PEREA, complainant, were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him to
vs. believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions
ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO, respondent. accordingly filed since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts
RESOLUTION that were already finalized and acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge
of the RTC retired, as a consequence, actions on pending cases were held in
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: abeyance; moreover, communications with the herein complainant had
become rarer; thereafter, towards the end of 1997 up to the next five months
Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar O. Perea of 1998, respondent was preoccupied with the congressional elections in
against Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer of Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost; then he was offered a position at
herein complainant. the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance
Division which he accepted; his time and attention was spent in the
Complainant narrates: Respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial performance of his demanding job at the PSE as well as in the preparation of
Court of Quezon City (Branch 99) where he (complainant Perea) is being his testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with
charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. On February 26, 1996, the the "BW" scam; anent the case of herein complainant, he offered on several
said RTC issued an order granting Atty. Almadro’s motion for leave to file occasions to withdraw as one of the defense counsel of the complainant even
demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from said date. All the while, to the extent of offering to return his acceptance fee which the latter however
complainant thought that respondent filed said demurrer and the case refused;6 it is not true that complainant pleaded with respondent to
against him dismissed. It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant withdraw as his counsel, the truth being that it was complainant who
learned that Atty. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial court refused to let go of respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a counsel of
ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his defense. Later, a complainant in the criminal case before the RTC, he was merely a
warrant was issued for his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court collaborating counsel, the lead counsel being Atty. Solomon Villanueva; 7
and post bail. Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to finally, he was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to take
respondent’s neglect of his duties. Respondent has not attended any of his with regard to complainant’s case when he received instead, a copy of the
hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw present complaint.8
formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Because of Atty.
Almadro’s neglect, complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and On February 28, 2001, the Court issued a Resolution9 referring the case to the
livelihood.1 Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Respondent filed three motions for extension of time to file comment. 2 On
November 13, 2000, the Court resolved to grant the said motions with a On June 13, 2001, the IBP through Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan
warning that no further extensions shall be granted. 3 On November 17, 2000, submitted its report, pertinent portions of which are quoted verbatim:
respondent, through the law firm Sua and Alambra, filed a Manifestation
and Motion that respondent has not yet received a copy of the complaint "We are not convinced about the truth of respondent’s
hence it asked the Court to order the complainant to furnish them a copy.4 affirmative allegations. It is clear that he as well as his counsels
are lying. First off, the manifestation with motion filed by
On December 20, 2000, respondent through said law firm submitted an respondent’s counsels, Sua and Alambra is incredibly
Answer5 to the complaint, contending that: two days after the RTC granted unbelievable. In fact, to be blunt about it, respondent’s
the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to counsels were clearly lying when they manifested that the
evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying respondent "has yet to receive a copy of the complaint..."
pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for This is an outrageous lie. The respondent’s three (3) motions
editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before the deadline, never once mentioned that he had not received copy of the
complaint. In fact, in his second motion for further extension
of time to file comment, Atty. Almadro CLEARLY stated in "The undersigned is convinced that Atty. Ruben L.
the second paragraph thereof that: Almadro’s actuations reveal not only serious neglect or
indifference to his duties as a lawyer but more gravely his
‘He is in the process of reviewing an initial draft of said open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents.
comment and will need said period of ten (10) days to
complete and finalize the draft.’ "We wish to put on record our extreme DISPLEASURE at
the behavior of respondent Atty. Ruben L. Almadro. We
"From the afore-quoted portion of Mr. Almadro’s strongly recommend that respondent be suspended from the
manifestation and motion, it is obvious he already had a practice of law for two (2) years and that he be fined Ten
copy of the complaint. The manifestation and motion filed Thousand (PhP10,000.00) Pesos. We likewise recommend
on his behalf by Attys. Sua and Alambra with the Honorable strongly that Attys. Sua and Alambra be ordered to explain
Supreme Court is a brazen and deliberate misrepresentation why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately
which deserves an uncompromising and vigorous foisting a deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation on the
condemnation. Honorable Supreme Court by declaring that their client had
not received a copy of the complaint when such was not true.
"The respondent claims he is in solo practice. How then can By their misrepresentation the afore-named counsels have
he honestly claim that when he could not find the draft of exhibited contemptible disrespect not only for the Court but
his demurrer in the magnetic computer diskette where he also the authority it represents."10
allegedly stored it, he was led "to believe that the drafts must
have been finalized and the edited versions thereof The report was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP
accordingly filed." This allegation is pure unadulterated Commission on Bar Discipline with some modifications thus:
garbage. All Mr. Almadro had to do was check his case
folder to see if a demurrer had indeed been filed. As a solo "RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
practitioner like this representation, we can only surmise ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
that logically, nothing happens or "goes down" in Mr. Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
Almadro’s office without his knowledge and indispensable above-entitled case, herein made part of this
participation. If so, how could he have been led to believe Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
anything? To be sure, he would have read and signed the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
demurrer before it was "accordingly filed." Being a solo and the applicable laws and rules, with modification, and
practitioner no one else could have signed that demurrer. considering that Atty. Ruben L. Almadro’s actuations reveal
And does Mr. Almadro expect anyone to believe that after not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a
finishing the draft (in his computer) he would not even lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court
bother to print a hard copy for him to read, edit and correct and the authority it represent. Respondent is hereby
without having to do so from his computer monitor? SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and
FINED for Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) Pesos. Likewise, Atty.
"Incidentally, this representation verified the records of the Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they
complainant’s criminal case before RTC-Branch 99, Quezon should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a
City. We came upon an Order of the incumbent presiding deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation."11
judge declaring the respondent herein in contempt of court
for repeatedly failing to submit an explanation as ordered by Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2002, this
the court. time in his own behalf, of the above quoted IBP Board Resolution. 12 This was
denied on October 19, 2002.13
We are in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of
law the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a
As clearly stated in the Code of Professional Responsibility - legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in
fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary
CANON 18 --- A lawyer shall serve his client with action."15
competence and diligence.
In other cases, the Court also held that while a lawyer may decline a person
Rule 18.03 --- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter to become his client for valid reasons, once he agrees to take up the cause of a
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith client, he begins to owe fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
shall render him liable. the trust and confidence reposed in him. As a lawyer, he must serve the
client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with
Rule 18.04 --- A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
to the client’s request for information. client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
legally applied.16 His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy
It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a
and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.17
trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More
than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the
developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal
without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously
court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to
trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. believe that the same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he even tried
to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually
mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding
In the recent case of Sps. Galen et al. vs. Atty. Paguirigan14 the Court is explicit
complainant’s case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for
in its pronouncement that:
disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is
contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.
"An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the
best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file
Again, the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter:
brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable
negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed
committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his CANON 10--- A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid faith to the court.
in the speedy administration of justice.
Rule 10.01 ---A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
xxx xxx xxx consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
"A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of
law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is In Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs Atty. Flores,18 the Court, aside from
entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted citing Canon 10 above stated that "a lawyer must be a disciple of truth."
devotion to his client’s cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an
serve his client with competence and diligence and he
officer of the court to observe honesty at all times, especially before the
courts.

Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how
his draft disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to
submit the necessary pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be
countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor.

The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan
Alambra to show cause why they should not be held in contempt