ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-02-1548 October 1, 2003 - ROBERT E. VILLAROS v. RODOLFO ORPIANO

  • A.M. Nos. P-03-1697 & P-03-1699 October 1, 2003 - JOCELYN S. PAISTE v. APRONIANO V. MAMENTA

  • G.R. Nos. 133066-67 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO H. LAMBID

  • G.R. No. 137554 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN MAMARION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148198 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZABETH CORPUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 150630-31 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME OLAYBAR

  • G.R. No. 152176 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER D. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 154130 October 1, 2003 - BENITO ASTORGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 156034 October 1, 2003 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. v. C & A CONSTRUCTION, INC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1803 October 2, 2003 - VICTOR A. ASLARONA v. ANTONIO T. ECHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. 128882 October 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL AYUDA

  • G.R. No. 145337 October 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEE HOI MING

  • G.R. No. 150382 October 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BASITE

  • A.C. No. 6061 October 3, 2003 - RAUL C. SANCHEZ v. SALUSTINO SOMOSO

  • A.M. MTJ-00-1311 October 3, 2003 - SILVESTRE H. BELLO III v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1547 October 3, 2003 - LEOPOLDO V. CAÑETE v. NELSON MANLOSA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1550 October 3, 2003 - AMELIA L. AVELLANOSA v. JOSE Z. CAMASO

  • G.R. No. 118375 October 3, 2003 - CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122134 October 3, 2003 - ROMANA LOCQUIAO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. BENITO A. LOCQUIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143388 October 6, 2003 - SPS. ROLANDO and ROSITA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146569 October 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN NEQUIA

  • A.M. Nos. P-03-1744–45 October 7, 2003 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL

  • G.R. No. 135377 October 7, 2003 - DSR-SENATOR LINES, ET AL. v. FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 149453 October 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. PANFILO M. LACSON

  • G.R. No. 149717 October 7, 2003 - EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. LTFRB

  • G.R. No. 155258 October 7, 2003 - CONRADO S. CANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 4881 October 8, 2003 - RAU SHENG MAO v. ANGELES A. VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 120864 October 8, 2003 - MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136845 October 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 145166 October 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146118 October 8, 2003 - SAMUEL SAMARCA v. ARC-MEN INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • G.R. Nos. 148056-61 October 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 149420 October 8, 2003 - SONNY LO v. KJS ECO-FORMWORK SYSTEM PHIL., INC.

  • G.R. No. 152776 October 8, 2003 - HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153751 October 8, 2003 - MID PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154579 October 8, 2003 - MA. LOURDES R. DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-96-1179 October 10, 2003 - WINSTON C. CASTELO v. CRISTOBAL C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 110604 October 10, 2003 - BUENAVENTURA S. TENORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140917 October 10, 2003 - MENELIETO A. OLANDA v. LEONARDO G. BUGAYONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1640 October 13, 2003 - SAAD ANJUM v. CESAR L. ABACAHIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122765 October 13, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO L. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. 141942 October 13, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PONCE JAMON

  • G.R. No. 143842 October 13, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGI L. ADAM

  • G.R. No. 144662 October 13, 2003 - SPS. EFREN AND DIGNA MASON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459 October 14, 2003 - IMELDA Y. MADERADA v. ERNESTO H. MEDIODEA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1674 October 14, 2003 - PABLO B. FRANCISCO v. OLIVIA M. LAUREL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1805 October 14, 2003 - TEODORA A. RUIZ v. ROLANDO G. HOW

  • G.R. No. 153157 October 14, 2003 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ARTHUR B. TONGSON

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1697 October 15, 2003 - EUGENIO K. CHAN v. JOSE S. MAJADUCON

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1699 October 15, 2003 - VERNETTE UMALI-PACO, ET AL. v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808 October 15, 2003 - RADELIA SY, ET AL. v. ANTONIO FINEZA

  • G.R. Nos. 123144, 123207 & 123536 October 15, 2003 - PABLO P. BURGOS, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126119 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP

  • G.R. No. 130662 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO ABON

  • G.R. No. 138364 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 142381 October 15, 2003 - PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142595 October 15, 2003 - RACHEL C. CELESTIAL v. JESSE CACHOPERO

  • G.R. Nos. 148139-43 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENIO CANOY

  • G.R. No. 156273 October 15, 2003 - HEIRS OF TIMOTEO MORENO, ET AL. v. MACTAN-CEBU INT’L. AIRPORT AUTHORITY

  • A.M. No. SCC-00-6-P October 16, 2003 - RE: Ma. Corazon M. Molo

  • A.M. No. P-02-1592 October 16, 2003 - LUZITA ALPECHE v. EXPEDITO B. BATO

  • G.R. No. 141074 October 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLY LIBRADO

  • G.R. No. 144881 October 16, 2003 - BETTY T. CHUA v. ABSOLUTE MNGT. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 147650-52 October 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO

  • G.R. No. 152492 October 16, 2003 - PALMA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MUN. OF MALANGAS

  • G.R. Nos. 153991-92 October 16, 2003 - ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1475 October 17, 2003 - MANUEL R. AQUINO v. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 131399 October 17, 2003 - ANGELITA AMPARO GO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133759-60 October 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO LORENZO

  • G.R. Nos. 148673-75 October 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO R. ABANILLA

  • G.R. No. 150286 October 17, 2003 - ELCEE FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. PAMPILO SEMILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142885 October 22, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM TIU, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1368 October 23, 2003 - JOSE GODOFREDO M. NAUI v. MARCIANO C. MAURICIO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 120409 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAMSON PICKRELL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120670 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HEDISHI SUZUKI

  • G.R. No. 125689 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SATIOQUIA

  • G.R. No. 127153 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATUR G. APOSAGA

  • G.R. No. 132788 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134485 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR PEREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 134573-75 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE BINARAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136849 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR A. CODERES

  • G.R. No. 138456 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO P. DEDUYO

  • G.R. No. 140247 October 23, 2003 - ALEX ASUNCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143252 October 23, 2003 - CEBU MARINE BEACH RESORT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146368-69 October 23, 2003 - MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146608 October 23, 2003 - SPS. CONSTANTE & AZUCENA FIRME v. BUKAL ENTERPRISES AND DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 147369 October 23, 2003 - SPS. PATRICK and RAFAELA JOSE v. SPS. HELEN and ROMEO BOYON

  • G.R. No. 147549 October 23, 2003 - JESUS DELA ROSA, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO CARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149149 October 23, 2003 - ERNESTO SYKI v. SALVADOR BEGASA

  • G.R. No. 149725 October 23, 2003 - OSCAR MAGNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 150493-95 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MACABATA

  • G.R. No. 150946 October 23, 2003 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF GLAN, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152135 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS GIALOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152716 October 23, 2003 - ELNA MERCADO-FEHR v. BRUNO FEHR

  • G.R. Nos. 154796-97 October 23, 2003 - RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155692 October 23, 2003 - PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. CAPITOL STEEL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155717 October 23, 2003 - ALBERTO JARAMILLA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1586 October 24, 2003 - THELMA C. BALDADO v. ARNULFO O. BUGTAS

  • G.R. No. 119775 October 24, 2003 - JOHN HAY PEOPLES ALTERNATIVE COALITION, ET AL. v. VICTOR LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119847 October 24, 2003 - JENNY ZACARIAS v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137597 October 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON S. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141615 October 24, 2003 - MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION-INDEPENDENT, ET AL. v. MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144439 October 24, 2003 - SOUTHEAST ASIA SHIPPING CORP. v. SEAGULL MARITIME CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148120 October 24, 2003 - RODRIGO QUIRAO, ET AL. v. LYDIA QUIRAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148597 October 24, 2003 - GRACE F. MUNSAYAC-DE VILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152285 October 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE OBESO

  • G.R. Nos. 152589 and 152758 October 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 153828 October 24, 2003 - LINCOLN L. YAO v. NORMA C. PERELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139181 October 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 143817 October 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR

  • A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1581 October 28, 2003 - MA. CORAZON M. ANDAL v. NICOLAS A. TONGA

  • G.R. No. 134563 October 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DALA

  • G.R. No. 138933 October 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRYVIE D. GUMAYAO

  • G.R. No. 150540 October 28, 2003 - DIMALUB P. NAMIL, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 155206 October 28, 2003 - GSIS v. EDUARDO M. SANTIAGO

  •  





     
     

    A.C. No. 4881   October 8, 2003 - RAU SHENG MAO v. ANGELES A. VELASCO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.C. No. 4881. October 8, 2003.]

    RAU SHENG MAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANGELES A. VELASCO, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    Complainant is a Taiwanese national. He came to the Philippines to invest in a beach resort for leisure and recreation. He engaged the services of respondent as legal consultant and retained counsel. Complainant now seeks his disbarment for gross misconduct and immorality. 1chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Complainant Rau Sheng Mao narrates that sometime in 1993 he hired respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco as his legal consultant and counsel for his company, the Foreign Investors Consultancy and Management Inc. (FICMI). As he was new in the country, he trusted the business judgment of respondent who crowed about his being president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Virac, Catanduanes Chapter.

    A year later, complainant, in his capacity as President of FICMI, entered into a Management Agreement with Haru Gen Beach Resort and Hotel Corporation ("Haru Gen") for the operation and management of Twin Rock Beach Resort in Virac, Catanduanes. Haru Gen was represented in this transaction by respondent as director and stockholder. After concluding the management agreement, respondent sold complainant his ten thousand shares of stock with Haru Gen for P1,000,000.00. Complainant alleges that although he had fully paid for the shares, as evidenced by receipts acknowledged by respondent, the latter failed and refused to deliver the certificates for the purchased shares.

    Complainant also alleges that respondent persuaded him to buy three (3) parcels of land belonging to the latter for P3,660,800.00. Although he paid respondent P3,300,000.00, the latter reneged on his obligation to deliver the certificates of title covering the purchased properties.

    To further complicate his woes, in the course of FICMI’s management of Twin Rock Beach Resort, several complaints were filed against him by former employees of the beach resort. Respondent acted as his counsel and in the course of their professional relationship respondent asked for several sums of money purportedly to be given to the judges hearing his cases. In one of his letters to complainant, respondent wrote — "the judge (whom he did not identify) was not contented of the P6,000.00 claiming that he dismissed two (2) cases. I suggest that you give additional P5,000.00 . . ." 2 In another letter he reported to complainant that "Judge Barsaga has already rendered the decision in my case regarding the three (3) parcels of land . . . He is asking — ‘Christmas gift’ . . ." 3

    Complainant also claims that respondent represented him in the special proceedings involving the settlement of the estate of the deceased Miharu Matsuzawa where he (complainant) was appointed administrator. Thereafter however their relationship turned sour and respondent did not only sever their professional relationship but went further and moved for the revocation of complainant’s appointment as administrator.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Lastly, complainant charges respondent with immorality for flaunting his illicit relationship with a certain Ludy Matienzo despite his being legally married to one Rosita Velasco. Complainant declares that the affaire d’ amour, which was common knowledge in the place, produced three (3) children, namely, Jesebeth, Jenny and Jenneth, all of whom were acknowledged by respondent as his own.

    Respondent denies the allegations and insists that he could not have deceived complainant in their business dealings inasmuch as the latter was represented in all their transactions by Atty. Ricardo B. Purog, Jr. Insofar as the charge of non-delivery of the purchased shares of stock is concerned, he asserts that complainant very well knew that he had not paid for his shares hence his failure to immediately deliver the certificates corresponding to the shares sold. As for the non-delivery of the certificates of title covering the three (3) parcels of land, respondent avers that he had told complainant that the purchased properties were still under litigation.

    Without disclaiming authorship of any of the letters presented by complainant where respondent bragged about his influence over judges, respondent avers that in all his thirty-five (35) years of practice he had never asked favors from judges nor privately sought an audience with them. He likewise denies having had any relationship with Ludy Matienzo and in support thereof he presented the affidavit of Ludy Matienzo refuting the imputed relationship between them as well as the affidavit of his wife Rosita attesting to his fidelity. 4

    In retort to respondent’s denial of fathering any of Ludy Matienzo’s daughters, complainant presented in evidence the baptismal certificate of Jenny M. Velasco which listed respondent Angeles Velasco as her father and Ludy Matienzo as her mother. 5 He likewise presented affidavits of several persons residing within the municipality, including a lawyer, a court employee and a neighbor of the Matienzos, confirming respondent’s intimate relationship with Ludy Matienzo. 6

    Consistent with Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the matter was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. After conducting a thorough investigation, the Commission recommended that respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco be "suspended for a period of at least two (2) years." Mainly, the recommendation was premised on the ground that notwithstanding complainant’s failure to support his allegation that respondent duped him in their business transactions, the evidence on record supports the charge of immorality against Respondent. Also, respondent by writing letters to complainant boasting about being able to influence judges undermined the integrity of the judiciary.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Upon a review of the records, we are convinced that respondent’s conduct leaves much to be desired. We however agree with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner that complainant was as not as gullible in his business dealings with respondent as he presented himself to be. The Commission found it unlikely for complainant to have been deceived by respondent inasmuch as the former was represented by his own counsel Atty. Purog, Jr. in all his business transactions with the latter. Thus, complainant could not have been misled by respondent with respect to the import of their contracts regarding the sale of the shares of stock with Haru Gen as well as the sale of the three (3) parcels of land. Nonetheless, respondent must still be chastised for his grossly immoral conduct.

    Respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco has been living an adulterous life with Ludy Matienzo with whom he has three (3) children. The children bear respondent’s surname; their school records even refer to their mother Ludy Matienzo as "Ludy M. Velasco." By flaunting his relationship with a woman not his wife respondent has transgressed the high moral standard required for membership in the bar.

    Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community." 7 Thus, in several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping a mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community. 8

    As keepers of the public faith, lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with the greatest caution. They are expected at all times to maintain due regard for public decency in the community where they live. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist in the dispensation of justice should be more possessed of the consciousness and the will to overcome the weakness of the flesh.

    What is more, respondent has violated another basic tenet of legal ethics — he has given complainant the impression that he was in a position to influence the court. 9 Thus, in a series of letters presented by complainant, which respondent meekly claimed were private communications between them, respondent trumpeted his connection with judges and their supposed demand for money. A lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which give the appearance of influencing the court. Respondent’s actions could not but place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict disciplinary action.chanrob1es virtual law library

    On these considerations, we feel strongly the impulse to purge respondent from the ranks of our noble profession. However, considering that he is in the declining years of his life 10 and has rendered years of service to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as President of the Virac, Catanduanes Chapter, we feel that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty for him. Hence, a suspension of two (2) years, as recommended by the Commission on Bar Discipline, would suffice as a punitive but compassionate disciplinary measure.

    Indeed, no profession offers greater opportunity for public service than that of a lawyer. For the privilege conferred upon him, a lawyer is tasked with the equally great responsibility of upholding the ethics and ideals established by the learned lawyers of ancient times. Into his hands are entrusted the life, liberty and property of a trusting man. The only guarantee that this trust will be carried with honor is;the character of the lawyer. Such character, on the other hand, can only be observed through one’s reputation and conduct. Thus, when a lawyer so deports himself that confidence can no longer be rested in him without fear, his usefulness to the court and to the society ceases.

    WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years from notice, with warning that a repetition of the acts charged will be dealt with more severely. Respondent is further ordered to notify this Court of his receipt of this Decision.

    Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts in the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and let it be spread in respondent’s personal record.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Corona, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 1-19.

    2. Id., p. 10.

    3. Id., p. 11.

    4. Id., pp. 51-65.

    5. Id., p. 292.

    6. Id., pp. 293-297.

    7. Words and Phrases, Vol. 20, p. 85, citing In Re Hicks, 20 P2d, 896, 897.

    8. Toledo v. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768 (1963); Arciga v. Maniwang, Adm. Case No. 1608, 14 August 1981, 106 SCRA 591; Obusan v. Obusan; Adm. Case No. 1392, 2 April 1984, 128 SCRA 485; Mendoza v. Mala, Adm. Case No. 1129, 27 July 1992, 211 SCRA 839; Narag v. Narag, Adm. Case No. 3405, 29 June 1998, 291 SCRA 451.

    9. Canon 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

    10. Respondent was sixty (69) years of age when he filed his Comment on 28 August 1998; Rollo, p. 51.

    A.C. No. 4881   October 8, 2003 - RAU SHENG MAO v. ANGELES A. VELASCO


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED