of title.

3[3] The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file an urgent
FIRST DIVISION motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court.
Hearings were scheduled.
WILFREDO T. GARCIA, A.C. No. 6422
Complainant, On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of
Present: Sarmiento, filed his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.4[4]

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, withdrawn from the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for
-versus- CORONA, misrepresenting to the court that he was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and
AZCUNA and omitting to mention that complainant was the counsel of record. According to him, his
GARCIA, JJ. attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent basis and therefore, the attempt of
respondent to enter his appearance at the final stage of the proceedings was tantamount
ATTY. BENIAMINO A. LOPEZ, to unfair harvesting of the fruit of complainant's labors since 1996.5[5]
Respondent. Promulgated:
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarvia
August 28, 2007 (Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo, Zenaida,
Wilson, Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x to her relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit executed by Gina
Jarvia and Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of
RESOLUTION respondent and that they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record.

CORONA, J.: In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson
Ku6[6] who sought his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to
In a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged retain his services. They allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent them in a hearing
respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar scheduled the next day. Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to immediately file an
and officer of the court, and misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that entry of appearance with motion for postponement. He asserted that it was an honest
respondent be suspended or disbarred. mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and
did not prejudice anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of misrepresenting
Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. himself to the court.
05-M-96 which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan,
Branch 15.1[1] Sarmiento sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a
376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This was granted by the court.2[2] The case went all the 3[3] Id., p. 17.
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 February 21, 2002, directed 4[4] Id., pp. 21-22.
the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of registration and certificate
5[5] Id., p. 4.
1[1] Rollo, p. 6.
6[6] Although in respondent's Rejoinder, he alleged that he also represented Geneva and
2[2] In a decision dated November 29, 1997 penned by Judge Carlos C. Ofilada; id., p. 15. Jeanette Ku. Id., p. 122.
 The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers:
Reyes, in his report and recommendation dated January 8, 2004, found respondent
guilty of misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
he was representing. He recommended that respondent be strongly reprimanded for his
act with a reminder that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with xxx xxx xxx
more severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its
resolution passed on February 27, 2004. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
We affirm the factual findings of the IBP but modify the penalty recommended. favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend
the causes of their clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities. Membership in the bar imposes on them certain obligations.7[7] They are Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was
duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly entering his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly
and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach at unfair to complainant who had worked on the case from the very beginning (i.e. since
all times.8[8] 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. It is true that without the formal
withdrawal of complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be
Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by being less than candid about
attorney-client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal functions
counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of of complainant as the counsel of record.
postponement in behalf of the compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento when in
truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a
guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He had no calculated deception, he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court.
authorization to represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will He should have been more careful about his actuation since the court was relying on
do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. him in its task of ascertaining the truth.
Likewise, the CPR states:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. practice of law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the
record of respondent.

7[7] Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, 1 July 2003, 405 SCRA 212, 217. SO ORDERED.

8[8] Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, A.C. No. 6396, 25 October 2005, 474 SCRA 1, 8, citing Alcantara
RENATO C. CORONA
v. Atty. Pefianco, 441 Phil. 514, 519 (2002).