Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > August 2016 Decisions > A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016 - TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents.:




A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016 - TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016

TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

PEREZ, J.:

This is a Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Resolution2 of the Court dated 22 August 2012 finding respondent Atty. John G. Reyes guilty of "negligence of contumacious proportions" and suspending him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

The Facts

The present case arose out of a petition for disbarment filed by Atty. Teodoro B. Cruz, Jr. (complainant) charging respondent Atty. John G. Reyes (respondent) with intentional misrepresentation, knowingly handling a case involving conflict of interest, falsification, knowingly alleging untruths in pleadings and unethical conduct, based on the following incidents:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe First Incident

(Intentional Misrepresentation and Knowingly Handling a Case Involving Conflict of Interest)

Complainant alleged that respondent entered his appearance as counsel for Mayor Rosito Velarde (Mayor Velarde) of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, in an election protest case that was on appeal before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The case, entitled "Racquel 'BIBI' Reyes de Guzman, Protestant, versus Mayor Rosito Velarde, Protestee," originated from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calabanga, Branch 63, Camarines Sur. According to the petition for disbarment, "an incident occurred" in the course of the trial which forced Mayor Velarde to bring an incident up to the COMELEC on certiorari.3chanrobleslaw

While the case was being tried at the RTC level, protestant Raquel Reyes De Guzman (De Guzman) was represented by the Sales Law Office of Naga City, although Atty. Roque Bello (Atty. Bello), who indicated in the pleadings that his address is in Cainta, Rizal, was the chief counsel. Mayor Velarde, on the other hand, was represented by Atty. Gualberto Manlagnit (Atty. Manlagnit) from Naga City. Atty. Manlagnit prepared the pleadings in connection with the appeal to the COMELEC but, according to complainant, unknown to Atty. Manlagnit, another pleading was filed before the COMELEC, which pleading was apparently prepared in Cainta, Rizal but was signed by respondent whose given address is in Quezon City.4chanrobleslaw

Complainant explained that De Guzman used to be allied with former Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella (Speaker Fuentebella) under the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) party, whereas Mayor Velarde was a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party, led by Camarines Sur Governor Luis R. Villafuerte (Gov. Villafuerte). The Fuentebellas and the Villafuertes are known to be politically at odds with each other. However, De Guzman subsequently changed her political allegiance and became affiliated with the Villafuertes by transferring to the LDP party. Mayor Velarde, on the other hand, became an ally of the Fuentebellas under the NPC.5chanrobleslaw

According to complainant, Atty. Bello agreed to represent De Guzman in the election protest case because she was a political ally of Speaker Fuentebella. Complainant emphasized that Atty. Bello has always represented the political interests of the Fuentebellas. There is, therefore, no doubt that Atty. Bello is the lawyer of the Fuentebellas.6 As a result, with the sudden shifting of the political loyalty of De Guzman and Mayor Velarde, Atty. Bello suddenly stopped appearing for De Guzman in the protest case without formally withdrawing as her counsel.7 Mayor Velarde now had to be defended by Atty. Bello because he is already an ally of the Fuentebellas. However, Atty. Bello cannot actively defend Mayor Velarde because he appeared for De Guzman before the RTC.8 Thus, complainant concluded, Atty. Bello found the expedient of passing the case to his clandestine partner, respondent Atty. Reyes, making the latter guilty of representing conflicting interests,9 in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Second Incident

(Falsification, Knowingly Alleging Untruths in Pleadings and Unethical Conduct)

On or before 15 December 2003, former Speaker Fuentebella filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Congressman of the 3rd District of Camarines Sur. Complainant also filed a COC for the same position. Subsequently, a certain Ebeta P. Cruz (Ebeta) and a certain Marita Montefalcon Cruz-Gulles (Marita) likewise filed their respective COCs for the aforementioned position. The former is an indigent laundry woman from San Jose, Camarines Sur, while the latter was a former casual laborer of the municipal government of Tigaon, Camarines Sur.10 Clearly, both Ebeta Marita had no real intention of running for the position for which they filed their COC, but were merely instigated to do so in order to confuse the electorate of the district, to the disadvantage of complainant. Consequently, complainant filed a petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates.11chanrobleslaw

In connection with the petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates, complainant filed a Memorandum with the COMELEC through the Office of the Camarines Sur Provincial Election Supervisor (PES). Pertinent portions of the Memorandum were quoted by the complainant in his petition for disbarment,12 to wit:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. Complainant received a copy of the Verified Answer of Marita signed by respondent as counsel, whose given address is in Quezon City;

2. From the Answer, it was made to appear that Marita caused the preparation thereof, read the allegations therein contained, and understood them. It was also made to appear that Marita signed the verification;

3. During the hearing at the PES in San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur, on 23 January 2004, respondent appeared and:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a.) on record, admitted that the signature appearing on the Verified Answer is his;

b.) officially manifested that he was hired by Marita as her counsel to prepare the Verified Answer;

c.) officially confirmed that the allegations in the Verified Answer were supplied by Marita; and cralawlawlibrary

d.) said that Marita was in his office in Quezon City when she "signed" the Verified Answer.
4. Marita arrived at the hearing to file a formal withdrawal of her COC. She was immediately put on the witness stand wherein she testified that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a.) she did not know respondent;

b.) she never solicited his legal services, particularly, to file the Verified Answer;

c.) she never supplied the allegations contained in the Answer;

d.) the signature appearing in the Answer is not her signature; and cralawlawlibrary

e.) she could not have signed the verification in the Answer in Quezon City on 15 January 2004 because she was in Bicol on that date.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The petition for disbarment also alleged that respondent admitted to Attys. Adan Marcelo Botor and Atty. Manlagnit - complainant's counsels in the petition for disqualification before the PES-COMELEC — that Atty. Bello merely gave the Verified Answer to him already signed and notarized.14chanrobleslaw

For his part, respondent narrated the following version of the events:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAnent the first incident, respondent alleged that he first met Atty. Bello sometime in May, 2003 when the latter was introduced to him by a friend. A few months after their meeting, Atty. Bello called him up to ask if he could handle a case to be filed with the COMELEC since Atty. Bello had so many cases to handle. The case would be to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction from the COMELEC.15chanrobleslaw

According to respondent, he informed Atty. Bello that he has never before handled an election case, much less one with an application for a TRO with Preliminary Injunction. Atty. Bello assured him that things would be difficult at first, but he would assist respondent and things will tuna out easier. Due to the assurance given and his desire for a more comprehensive experience in law practice, respondent agreed to accept the case. Since he made it clear from the start that he has no knowledge or experience in election cases, he was never part of the preparations in connection with the case. Atty. Bello simply called him up for a meeting when the pleading was ready so that he could sign the same. They agreed to meet somewhere in Timog, Quezon City and after he read the pleading and sensing that there was no problem, he signed the same inside Atty. Bello's car. Thereafter, he attended the initial hearing of the case, during which, the parties were required to submit their respective Memoranda.16chanrobleslaw

Respondent claimed that up to that point, there were no indications about the true nature of the case. However, when he was preparing the required Memorandum, he found telltale signs. After his two appearances before the COMELEC and the submission of the Memorandum, respondent declared that he never knew what happened to the case as he formally withdrew therefrom immediately upon knowing the circumstances of the case. He maintained that he cannot be held guilty of representing conflicting interests because he never handled any previous case involving either of the parties in the COMELEC case. Moreover, he was not properly apprised of the facts and circumstances relative to the case that would render him capable of intelligently deciding whether or not to accept the case. He likewise did not receive a single centavo as attorney's, acceptance or appearance fees in connection with the case. He agreed to handle the same simply to accommodate Atty. Bello and to improve his skills as a lawyer and never for monetary considerations.17chanrobleslaw

With respect to the second incident, respondent related that he was at home in Pangasinan on 17 January 2004 when he received a call from Atty. Bello asking him to attend a hearing in Camarines Sur. He declined the request three times due to his tight schedule. Atty. Bello pleaded, saying that even on Saturdays, hearings could be scheduled. Thus, even if he did not want to attend the hearing due to its distance and because of his full calendar, he could not refuse because he really did not schedule appointments and/or hearings on Saturdays. All that was told him regarding the case was that a congressional candidate was being disqualified and a lawyer is needed to defend him and his candidacy. Respondent alleged that according to Atty. Bello, the candidate was qualified and financially capable of funding his campaign. Nevertheless, he clarified from Atty. Bello if the candidate is not a nuisance candidate and Atty. Bello allegedly replied: "Qualified na qualified naman talaga eh." Respondent added that it was not disclosed to him that the disqualification case involved a candidate for the third congressional district of Camarines Sur. He was simply informed that the scheduled hearing of the disqualification case would be on 23 January 2004 in Naga City.18chanrobleslaw

Since respondent was in Pangasinan and due to the fact that the deadline for the filing of the necessary pleading was nearing, Atty. Bello advised respondent that he would just prepare the Answer and sign for respondent's name in the pleading. Respondent maintained that he would not have agreed to Atty. Bello's proposal, had it not been for the pressed urgency, trusting that he would not get into any trouble.19chanrobleslaw

While waiting for the scheduled date of the hearing to arrive, he wondered why he has not been furnished a copy of the pleading or given additional instructions relative to the case. Atty. Bello, in the meantime;, has ceased to communicate with him and suddenly became inaccessible. He thus toyed with the impression that he was being left out of the case for reasons he could not then understand.20chanrobleslaw

According to respondent, he was able to get a copy of the Answer only when he was already in Naga City and it was only then and there, while reading it, that he realized that the case was, in reality, about a nuisance candidate and that the client he was to appear for was, indeed, a nuisance candidate. What was even more surprising to him was that the copy of the Answer that was given to him was unsigned: neither by him nor by his supposed client. It was likewise not notarized. Finding the indefensibility of his client and in order not to make matters worse, he opted to appear and just submit the case for resolution. To prove this point, respondent alleged that all he had with him for the hearing were only the unsigned and unnotarized Answer, the petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates, his case calendar and nothing else. Fie had not in his person any evidence whatsoever in support of the defense of his client. Respondent added that even at this point, he had no knowledge that his supposed client "had already jumped ship." More importantly, he did not know that her signature on the Answer was forged, precisely because the copy of the Answer that1 was given to him was unsigned.21chanrobleslaw

Before the start of the hearing, respondent started looking for his client but she could not be found. He, nevertheless, proceeded to the hearing for it was immaterial to him whether she was present or not as ho had already planned to simply submit the case for resolution. Unfortunately, respondent claimed, the proceedings before the PES started as a casual conversation with the lawyers for herein complainant and went on to a full trial, "wittingly or unwittingly."22chanrobleslaw

Respondent admitted that, during the hearing, he acknowledged; that the signature appearing on the Answer was his. He alleged that despite his personal aversion and objection to certain allegations in the Answer, he could not anymore deny the signature above his printed name, even if it was only signed for and in his behalf, because he had previously agreed, although unwillingly, that his name be signed in the pleading. It, therefore, came as a surprise to him that of all the questions that can be asked of him during the trial, he was questioned about his signature. Belatedly he realized that he should have objected to the line of questioning as he was being presented as an unwilling witness for therein petitioner. However, without sufficient exposure in the legal practice and wanting of the traits of a scheming lawyer, he failed to seasonably object to the line of questioning.23chanrobleslaw

Nevertheless, respondent vehemently denied complainant's allegation that he admitted having seen Marita sign the document in his presence. According to him, he vividly recalls his response to the then query whether or not Marita signed the document in his presence as: "I suppose that is her signature." Likewise, when queried further on the ideal that the pleading should be signed by Marita in his presence as her counsel, he allegedly responded: "While it is the ideal, sometimes we lawyers, like you and I, sign documents even if the client is not around due to our busy schedules." He pointed out to the two lawyers of herein complainant that whether Marita signed the Answer in his presence or not is inconsequential since he was not the notary public who notarized the Answer. He argued that his signature pertains to the allegations in the Answer, while the signature of his client forms part of the verification and certification and that it is the duty of the notary public to see to it that the person signing the pleading as a party is really the person referred to in the verification/certification.24chanrobleslaw

Finally, respondent declared that except for the modest appearance, cum transportation fees that he received, there was no monetary consideration for handling the petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates. He explained that when the case was offered to him, it was in haste and under a tenor of urgency that the only impression he got was that the client was well-to-do and could wage a decent campaign and was really a qualified candidate. He repeated the words of Atty. Bello: "qualified na qualifed sya." He emphasized that all he wanted was to expand his experience and practice as a lawyer.25cralawredchanrobleslaw

In his report and recommendation dated 17 April 2007, Investigating Commissioner Edmund T. Espina found respondent guilty of the charges against him and recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month. The report, in part, reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It taxes the undersigned Commissioner's imagination, however, that respondent disclaims any knowledge in the above incidents and that he was just a "willing victim" of the rather scheming tactics of a fellow lawyer, who, surprisingly he did not even thought (sic) of running after and holding liable, even after all these charges filed against him. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that respondent himself had knowledge of and allowed himself to be used by whoever should be properly held liable for these fraud and misrepresentation.

As regards the second incident, respondent argues that he could not be held guilty of forgery, misrepresentation, and other related offenses. x x x If at all, respondent was forced to unwittingly represent an 'unwilling' client, all in the name of accommodation. Undersigned Commissioner disagrees.

Respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for an unknown client. x x x

Undersigned Commissioner finds sufficient legal basis for disciplinary action against respondent for the various misrepresentations and later, admissions before the COMELEC when confronted with his "supposed client", claiming that it was Arty. Roque [sic] who merely gave him instructions and whose requests he merely accommodated. x x x

His shortcomings when he accepted to be a counsel for an unknown client in the COMELEC protest (first incident) is in itself, already deplorable but to repeat the same infraction in the petition for disqualification (in the second incident) constitutes negligence of contumacious proportions. It is even worse that respondent has attempted to mitigate his liability by professing ignorance or innocence of the whole thing, a matter that, too, is inexcusable. Clearly, it is a lame excuse that respondent did offer. By his own confession, he was woefully negligent.26chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On 19 September 2007, Resolution No. XVIII-2007-99 was passed by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) resolving to adopt and approve the above report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. It thereafter forwarded the report to: the Supreme Court as required under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.27chanrobleslaw

On 22 August 2012, the Court issued the questioned Resolution adopting the above-quoted findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner. The Court, however, increased the period of suspension from the recommended one (1) month to one (1) year. The same Resolution also resolved to:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x

2. IMPLEAD Attys. Roque Bello and Carmencita A. Rous-Gonzaga in this administrative proceedings; and cralawlawlibrary

3. REMAND the whole records of this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further Investigation, report and recommendation with respect to the charges against ATTY. ROQUE BELLO and ATTY. CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA.
Respondent is now before us seeking a reconsideration of the aforementioned Resolution insofar as the penalty imposed against him is concerned.

Respondent points out that from the very start, he had been very candid as to the factual backdrop of the present case. He never denied that he should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be a counsel for an unknown client. He does not refute, nor does he argue against, the finding of the Commission on Bar Discipline that he was remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he accommodated the requests of a fellow lawyer to represent an unknown client. However, respondent argues, such negligence is not the negligence "of contumacious proportions" warranting the imposition of the penalty of suspension. Likewise, such negligence is not tantamount to having knowledge of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation, for the simple reason that he did not know the details of the election case until its hearing on 23 January 2004 in Naga City. He maintains that if such fraud and misrepresentation really exists, his "only fault was that he allowed himself to be duped to unwittingly represent an 'unwilling' client, all in the name of accommodation."

Our Ruling

We find respondent's motion for reconsideration partially meritorious.

Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or the suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the said administrative penalties28 and the burden of proof rests upon the complaint.29 "Preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented contrary evidence."30 In the case at bar, complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence in support of his claim that respondent "knowingly" handled a case involving conflict of interest, "knowingly" alleged untruths in pleadings, and that he "intentionally" committed misrepresentation and falsification.

In connection with the first incident, complainant alleged that respondent perpetrated acts constituting intentional misrepresentation and knowingly handling a case involving conflict of interest when he appeared as counsel for Mayor Velarde in the COMELEC case. Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of this rule is present in a given case, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
One test is whether 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. Thus, if a lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the 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.31 (Emphasis omitted)
Based on the foregoing criteria, there must be a previous lawyer-client relationship in order for the liability to attach. Clearly, respondent cannot be held liable under any of the three aforementioned tests because he was never a counsel for either party in the COMELEC case prior to the filing of the said action. Complainant, however, would have us believe that respondent is the "furtive" or "clandestine" partner of Atty. Bello so as to justify his accusation that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Complainant, however, failed to present sufficient evidence in support of his allegation. The mere fact that respondent agreed to handle a case for Atty. Bello does not - alone - prove that they are indeed partners. This Court is inclined to give more weight and credence to the explanation proffered by respondent: that is, he accepted the case without being fully aware of the real facts and circumstances surrounding it. His narration is straightforward enough to be worthy of belief, especially considering that he withdrew from the case after he realized its true nature, as evidenced by the "Withdrawal as Counsel"32 he filed before the COMELEC.

With respect to the charge of intentional misrepresentation, complainant failed to specify which act of respondent constituted the alleged offense. If the alleged misrepresentation pertains to the act of respondent of signing the pleading prepared by Atty. Bello, we do not agree with complainant and the same cannot be considered as misrepresentation since respondent specified in his Comment that he read the pleading before he affixed his signature thereto. He was, therefore, aware of the statements contained in the pleading and his act of signing the same signifies that he agreed to the allegations therein contained. On the other hand, if the misrepresentation alleged by complainant refers to the allegations in the pleading filed by respondent before the COMELEC, again, it cannot be said that there was "intentional" misrepresentation on the part of respondent since, as admitted by respondent and as complainant himself asserted, the allegations therein contained were supplied by Atty. Bello, which allegations, at that time the pleading was signed, respondent did not know were inaccurate. As pointed out above, as soon as the true nature of the situation revealed itself, respondent withdrew from the case.

Regarding the second incident, complainant claimed that, in connection with the petition to declare Marita as a nuisance candidate, respondent committed falsification and knowingly alleged untruths, not only in Marita's Verified Answer to the disqualification case against her, but during the hearing of the case, as well. As with the first incident, respondent maintained that he accepted the case without being fully aware of the circumstances relative thereto, this time because of the insistence and urgency with which Atty. Bello made the request.

We earlier noted respondent's candor in explaining his cause. His candidness about the events leading to this administrative complaint against him is demonstrated by the following declarations he made: (1) having agreed to have his name signed in the pleading on his behalf, he cannot now deny the signature above his printed name;33 (2) he believed the assurances of his fellow lawyers (counsels for herein complainant) that whatever may have been said in confidence between them will not be revealed to anybody for whatever reason;34 and (3) he failed to seasonably object to the line of questioning relative to his signature on Marita's Answer, thereby incriminating himself and making him an unwilling witness for the opposing party, because of his insufficient experience in the legal practice and as a result of his lack of the traits of a scheming lawyer.35 These straightforward statements, coupled with the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proven,36 keep us from treating respondent's proffered explanation as an indication of mendacity.37 This Court is, therefore, compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt and apply in his favor the presumption that he acted in good faith, especially considering the failure of complainant to present clear and convincing evidence in support of his allegations.

Thus, with respect to the charge that respondent "knowingly" alleged untruths in the supposed Verified Answer of Marita, he admitted that

Marita's Answer was prepared by Atty. Bello, whom respondent likewise authorized to sign his name on the pleading on his behalf. This statement was corroborated by complainant himself when he alleged in his petition for disbarment that "Atty. John Reyes admitted to the two counsels of then candidate Teodoro Cruz, Jr. x x x that the Answer was merely passed to him by Atty. Bello already signed and notarized." Consequently, respondent cannot be held liable for "knowingly" alleging untruths for the simple reason that the allegations in the Answer were not supplied by him.

Neither can respondent be held guilty of falsification in connection with the forged signature of Marita. "The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence."38 Complainant merely alleged that Marita's signature in the Answer "was forged either by Attorney Roque Bello or respondent x x x"39 and that respondent falsified or caused the falsification of the signature because "he is the one who presented the same to the COMELEC, hence, presumed to be the one who falsified the same."40 Other than this presumption and bare allegation, complainant has not adduced any proof in support thereof. As a result, this Court cannot give any merit to his accusation.

The same is true in connection with complainant's allegation that respondent falsely testified and made misrepresentations during the nuisance candidate case hearing before the PES by manifesting that he is the lawyer of Marita, that the allegations in the Answer were supplied by Marita and that Marita was in his office when she signed the Answer's verification. Apart from his allegations, complainant has not presented any evidence, as for instance, the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the proceedings, to prove that respondent indeed made the statements attributed to him and to enable this Court to properly evaluate the transgressions ascribed to respondent.

It is well to note that respondent vehemently denied having admitted seeing Marita sign the Verification before his presence in his office in Quezon City. He insisted that his response, when queried about Marita's signature, was that: "I suppose that is her signature." This Court finds it unreasonable - illogical, even - that after having admitted the blunders he committed in this case, he would now deny this particular circumstance, unless he was in fact telling the truth. In any case, as explained by respondent, it is of no moment whether or not he saw Marita sign the Verification since he was not the notary public who notarized the Answer. Respondent's signature in the Answer refers to the allegations therein, whereas the signature of Marita forms part of the Verification which states that "she has caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and has read the contents thereof which are true and correct of her own personal knowledge." Respondent is, therefore, correct when he pointed out that it is the responsibility of the notary public administering the oath to make sure that the signature in the Verification really belongs to the person who executed the same.

It must be emphasized that "the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes [his] case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. x x x When the pieces of evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or when doubt exists on the preponderance of evidence, the equipoise rule dictates that the decision be against the party carrying the burden of proof."41chanrobleslaw

The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be said that respondent has no liability at all under the circumstances. His folly, though, consists in his negligence in accepting the subject cases without first being fully apprised of and evaluating the circumstances surrounding them. We, nevertheless, agree with respondent that such negligence is not of contumacious proportions as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension. This Court find the penalty of suspension for one (1) year earlier imposed on respondent too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed. "The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty."42 The penalty to be meted out on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion taking into consideration the facts surrounding each case.43chanrobleslaw

In this connection, the following circumstances should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate respondent's responsibility: first respondent exhibited enough candor to admit that he was negligent and remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he accommodated the request of another lawyer to handle a case without being first apprised of the details and acquainted with the circumstances relative thereto; and second, since this is his first offense, respondent "is entitled to some measure of forbearance."44chanrobleslaw

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court dated 22 August 2012 is hereby modified in that respondent Atty, John G. Reyes is REPRIMANDED for his failure to exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of the legal profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 284-288.

2 Id. at 282-283.

3 Id. at 3.

4 Id. at 3-4.

5 Id. at 4.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 5.

8 Id. at 6.

9 Id. at 8.

10 Id. at 9.

11 Id. at 10.

12 Id. at 10-11.

13 Id. at 14 and 17-19.

14 Id. at 20.

15 Id. at 60.

16 Id. at 60-61.

17 Id. at 62.

18 Id. at 63.

19 Id.

20 Id. at 64.

21 Id. at 65.

22 Id. at 66.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 67.

25cralawred Id. at 68.

26 Id. at 223-225.

27 SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. -
x x x x

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
28Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Sagucio, 520 Phil. 538, 548 (2006) citing Berbano v. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 341 (2003).

29Rudecon Management Corp. v. Camacho, 480 Phil. 652, 660 (2004) citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarcido, 449 Phil. 619 (2003).

30Ylaya v. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407-408 (2013).

31Aniñon v. Sabitsana, Jr., 685 Phil. 322, 327 (2012) citing Quiambao v. Bamba, 505 Phil. 126, 134 (2005).

32Rollo, p. 72.

33 Id. at 66.

34 Id. at 67.

35 Id. at 66.

36Ylaya v. Gacott, supra note 30 at 408.

37Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., 533 Phil. 303, 310 (2006).

38De Jesus v. Guerrero III, 614 Phil. 520, 614 (2009) citing Manalabe v. Cabie, 553 Phil. 544, 551 (2007).

39Rollo, p. 20.

40Id. at 120.

41Ylaya v. Gacott, supra note 30 at 413.

42Ramos v. Ngaseo, 487 Phil. 40, 49 (2004).

43Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio, supra note 28 at 552.

44Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., supra note 37 at 31.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 206936, August 03, 2016 - PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioners, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND MATEO A. BELIZAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201070, August 01, 2016 - LUZ S. NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. LEONORA C. MARIANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195072, August 01, 2016 - BONIFACIO DANAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GREGORIO SERRANO AND ADELAIDA REYES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202531, August 17, 2016 - GOMECO METAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND PAMANA ISLAND RESORT HOTEL AND MARINA CLUB, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187349, August 17, 2016 - BARANGAY MAYAMOT, ANTIPOLO CITY, Petitioner, v. ANTIPOLO CITY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF ANTIPOLO, BARANGAYS STA. CRUZ, BAGONG NAYON AND MAMBUGAN, AND CITY ASSESSOR AND TREASURER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214450, August 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL PRADO Y MARASIGAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 194649, August 10, 2016 - SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND TERESITA L. SOLIMAN, Petitioners, v. IGMEDIO C. SARMIENTO, JOSE JUN CADA AND ERVIN R. ROBIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201106, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD BALLACILLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212930, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELO BUENAFE Y BRIONES @ ANGEL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 158464, August 02, 2016 - JOCELYN S. LIMKAICHONG, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192790, August 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YOLANDO LIBRE ALIAS "NONOY," Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 184008, August 03, 2016 - INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. FILIPINO INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9436, August 01, 2016 - SPOUSES NUNILO AND NEMIA ANAYA, Complainants, v. ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, JR., Respondent.

  • GR. No. 196735, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN PROMULGATED: ALVIR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11380, August 16, 2016 - JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210218, August 17, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ANTONINA RABIE, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212848, August 17, 2016 - ISIDRO COSME AND FERNAN COSME, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3485 [Formerly A.M. No. 14-4-47-MTC], August 01, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ELENA S. DIONISIO, FORMER OFFLCER-IN-CHARGE, INTERPRETER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CARDONA, RIZAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210752, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE REGALADO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191088, August 17, 2016 - FRILOU CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. AEGIS INTEGRATED STRUCTURE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205004, August 17, 2016 - SPOUSES ERNESTO IBIAS, SR. AND GONIGONDA IBIAS, Petitioners, v. BENITA PEREZ MACABEO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10443, August 08, 2016 - WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR., REPRESENTED BY ROSARIO B. CAMPOS, RITA C. BATAC AND DORINA D. CARPIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205623, August 10, 2016 - CONCHITA A. SONLEY, Petitioner, v. ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK/ EQUICOM SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208181, August 31, 2016 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202808, August 24, 2016 - EDUARDO C. SILAGAN, Petitioner, v. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., VICTORIANO A. BASCO AND/OR HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARITIME, CO., LTD.,* Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206878, August 22, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO CAGA Y FABRE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207586, August 17, 2016 - AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFPRSBS), Petitioner, v. EDUARDO SANVICTORES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016 - SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA NUEZCA, Complainants, v. ATTY. ERNESTO V. VILLAGARCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210128, August 17, 2016 - ATTY. AMADO Q. NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICES (DOF-RIPS), REPRESENTED BY JOSE APOLONIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182252, August 03, 2016 - JOSE NORBERTO ANG, Petitioner, v. THE ESTATE OF SY SO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167082, August 03, 2016 - TERESITA I. BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189852, August 17, 2016 - THOMAS BEGNAEN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES LEO CALIGTAN AND ELMACALIGTAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192297, August 03, 2016 - SUPRA MULTI-SERVICES, INC., JESUS TAMBUNTING, JR., AND RITA CLAIRE T. DABU, Petitioners, v. LANIE M. LABITIGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219830, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO O. BATUHAN AND ASHLEY PLANAS LACTURAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 219783, August 03, 2016 - SPOUSES ERNESTO TATLONGHARI AND EUGENIA TATLONGHARI, Petitioners, v. BANGKO KABAYAN-IBAAN RURAL BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8825, August 03, 2016 - BUDENCIO DUMANLAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JAIME M. BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220998, August 08, 2016 - HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. RENANTE J. OBRA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209032, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIVENCIO AUSA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 218809, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN EGAGAMAO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212530, August 10, 2016 - BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC., Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216130, August 03, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11113, August 09, 2016 - CLEO B. DONGGA-AS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES, ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, OF THE ANGELES, GRANDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213380, August 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMAN ESPIA, Accused-Appellant; JESSIE MORANA, REX ALFARO, RODRIGO AZUCENA, JR., AND RENANTE ABISADO, Accused.

  • G.R. No. 202176, August 01, 2016 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CHUY LU TAN, MR. ROMEO TANCO, DR. SY SE HIONG, AND TAN CHU HSIU YEN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3113, August 02, 2016 - ROSEMARIE GERDTMAN, REPRESENTED BY HER SISTER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROSALINE LOPEZ BUNQUIN, Complainant, v. RICARDO V. MONTEMAYOR, JR., SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, CALAPAN CITY, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016 - GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Petitioner, v. JUAN ANTONIO MUNOZ, Respondent.

  • G.R.No. 203880, August 10, 2016 - VICTORIA ECHANES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PATRICIO HAILAR AND ADORACION HAILAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200299, August 17, 2016 - SPOUSES JUAN CHUY TAN AND MARY TAN (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY THE SURVIVING HEIRS, JOEL TAN AND ERIC TAN, Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206451, August 17, 2016 - ELPIDIO MAGNO, HEIRS OF ISIDRO M. CABATIC, NAMELY: JOSE CABATIC, RODRIGO CABATIC, AND MELBA CABATIC; AND ODELITO M. BUGAYONG, AS HEIR OF THE LATE AURORA MAGNO, Petitioners, v. LORENZO MAGNO, NICOLAS MAGNO, PETRA MAGNO, MARCIANO MAGNO, ISIDRO MAGNO, TEODISTA MAGNO, ESTRELLA MAGNO, BIENVENIDO M. DE GUZMAN, CONCHITA M. DE GUZMAN, SILARY M. DE GUZMAN, MANUEL M. DE GUZMAN AND MANOLO M. DE GUZMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196289, August 15, 2016 - Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217024, August 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODEL BOLO Y MALDO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200765, August 08, 2016 - DESIDERIO RANARA, JR., Petitioner, v. ZACARIAS DE LOS ANGELES, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213157, August 10, 2016 - NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. OFELIAM. OLIVA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF CEBU CITY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 213558 - OFELIA M. OLLVA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF CEBU CITY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10231, August 10, 2016 - OSCAR M. BAYSAC, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELOISA M. ACERON-PAPA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189081, August 10, 2016 - GLORIA S. DY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANDY COMMODITIES CO., INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, WILLIAM MANDY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203192, August 15, 2016 - IBM PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. PRIME SYSTEMS PLUS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188769, August 03, 2016 - JOSEPH OMAR O. ANDAY A, Petitioner, v. RURAL BANK OF CABADBARAN, INC., DEMOSTHENES P. ORAIZ and RICARDO D. GONZALEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220715, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RONNIE BOY EDA Y CASANI, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217872, August 24, 2016 - ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI) AND ATTY. MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS PRESIDENT OF ALFI, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS, EILEEN Z. ARANETA, SALVACION C. MONTIERO, MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. BAUTISTA, RUBEN T. UMALI AND MILDRED C. CASTOR, Petitioners, v. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND MARIA LOURDES C. SANTIAGO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CENTER FOR DRUG REGULATION AND RESEARCH, Respondents.; G.R. No. 221866 - MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS COUNSEL OF PETITIONERS, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS, EILEEN Z. ARANETA, SALVACION C. MONTIERO, MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. BAUTISTA, RUBEN T. UMALI AND MILDRED C. CASTOR, Petitioners, v. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND MARIA LOURDES C. SANTIAGO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CENTER FOR DRUG REGULATION AND RESEARCH, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208758, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOVEN GERON Y YEMA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. DANILO A. PANGASINAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212632, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEN ANDO Y SADULLAH AND SARAH ANDO Y BERNAL, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 219592, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTHUR PARCON Y ESPINOSA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 181268, August 15, 2016 - MILAGROS HERNANDEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FE HERNANDEZ-ARCEO, Petitioner, v. EDWINA C. OCAMPO, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, FELICITAS R. MENDOZA, METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, THE SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINAN, LAGUNA, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177875, August 08, 2016 - ATTY. RODOLFO D. MATEO, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ARTHUR P. AUTEA, PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, JOSE J. BELTRAN, EVELYN F. DACUYCUY, C.G. DUMATAY, HIGEVO C. MANGOSING, JOEY C. CASTRO, PACITA F. BARBA, RICARDO OLARTE, BELEN I. JUAREZ, LIZA T. OLIVAR, LUISA C. BOKINGO, SANDRO JESUS T. SALES, EDGARDO T. AGBAY, EDUARDO F. PACIO, MILDRED V. BEADOY, FRANCIS B. HILARIE, MA. NERIZZA L. BERDIN, LUIS S. RONGAVTLLA, ARLENE C. DIAZ, MARY JANE M. LAPIDEZ, MELCHOR P. ABRIL, VILMA A. VERGARA, MA. ISABEL S. NOFUENTE, BEATRIZ N. SORIANO, MA. ANNABELLE S. LUSUNG, JAIME M. NOFUENTE, ERLINDA RIZO, MA. CHAREVA S. GONZALES, LILIAN P. GACUSAN, MA. ANGELICA R. RONGAVILLA, EVELYN V. AYSON, CHARITO M. MENGUITO, ARLEEN E. BATAC, RENATO R. RIZO, EDUARDO D. ADINO, MILAGROS M. VELASCO, BELEN T. TORMON, RENATO P. GOJO CRUZ AND EMMIE L. RUALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185369, August 03, 2016 - J. TOBIAS M. JAVIER AND VINCENT H. PICCIO III, Petitioners, v. RHODORA J. CADIAO, ALFONSO V. COMBONG, JR., BENJAMIN E. JUANITAS, CALIXTO G. ZALDIVAR III, DANTE M. BERIONG, FERNANDO C. CORVERA, HECTOR L. FRANGUE AND KENNY S. OLANDRES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163494, August 03, 2016 - JESUSA T. DELA CRUZ Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220023, August 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DARIO TUBORO Y RAFAEL, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206227, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY BUENAMER Y MANDANE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215954, August 01, 2016 - SPOUSES JOVEN SY AND CORAZON QUE SY, Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016 - WILFREDO MOSQUEDA, MARCELO VILLAGANES, JULIETA LAWAGON, CRISPIN ALCOMENDRAS, CORAZON SABINADA, VIRGINIA CATA-AG, FLORENCIA SABANDON, AND LEDEVINA ADLAWAN, Petitioners, v. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. No. 189305 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION (PBGEA), DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187850, August 17, 2016 - ANITA U. LORENZANA, Petitioner, v. RODOLFO LELINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215750, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLITO TAYAO Y LAYA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191527, August 22, 2016 - BALIBAGO FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. AND PHILIPPINE BAPTIST S.B.C., INC., Petitioners, v. FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. AND REYNALDO GALVAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3137, August 23, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. UMAIMA L. SILONGAN, ABIE M. AMILIL, AND SALICK U. PANDA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170060, August 17, 2016 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CLARGES CORPORATION, REALTY Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 2404, August 17, 2016 - NILO B. DIONGZON, Petitioner, v. ATTY. WILLIAM MIRANO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016 - AVIDA LAND CORPORATION (FORMERLY LAGUNA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), Complainant, v. ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192491, August 17, 2016 - MARY JANE G. DY CHIAO, Petitioner, v. SEBASTIAN BOLIVAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, IN NAGA CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220479, August 17, 2016 - PASDA, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC, SR., SUBSTITUTED BY THE HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. DEMOSTHENES D. C. DIMAYACYAC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219569, August 17, 2016 - HSY MARKETING LTD., CO., Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO O. VILLASTIQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205573, August 17, 2016 - HELEN LORENZO CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, TEOFILO Q. INOCENCIO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REGIONAL OFFICE NO. III, AND YOLANDA MERCADO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016 - TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218578, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRICO BRIONES BADILLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213187, August 24, 2016 - HAIDE BULALACAO-SORIANO, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO PAPINA, REPRESENTED BY ROSEMARY PAPINA-ZABALA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016 - JAKERSON G. GARGALLO, Petitioner, v. DOHLE SEAFRONT CREWING (MANILA), INC., DOHLE MANNING AGENCIES, INC., AND MR. MAYRONILO B. PADIZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213241, August 01, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. JUAN F. VILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220461, August 24, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPOUSES PRIMO C. YBAÑEZ AND NILA S. YBAÑEZ, MARIS Q. REYOS, AND MICHELLE T. HUAT, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.C. No. 9464, August 24, 2016 - INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK, PHIL., INC., REPRESENTED BY LUIS MARCO I. AVANCEÑA, Complainant, v. ATTY. REBECCA S. FRANCISCO-SIMBILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA," Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3418 (Formerly A.M. No. P-12-3-46-RTC), August 08, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANTONIA P. ESPEJO, STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222658, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIO GALIA BAGAMANO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3515 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-4401-P), August 10, 2016 - ARNOLD G. TECSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARICEL LILLED ASUNCION-ROXAS, CLERK OF COURT VI, BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214186, August 03, 2016 - RODFHEL BACLAAN, TORREFIEL, MYRA SUACILLO, LORLIE ORENDAY, SHEELA LAO, AND LEODELYN LIBOT, Petitioners, v. BEAUTY LANE PHILS., INC/MS. MA. HENEDINA D. TOBOJKA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195138, August 24, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MISAMIS ORIENTAL I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3490 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4278-P], August 30, 2016 - JUDGE FE GALLON-GAYANILO, Complainant, v. ERIC C. CALDITO, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 35, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO,, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11317, August 23, 2016 - ETHELENE W. SAN JUAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215715, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDCEL COLORADA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220608, August 31, 2016 - MARCELINO T. TAMIN, Petitioner, v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR MASTERBULK PTE. LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185473, August 17, 2016 - BERNADETTE IDA ANG HIGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200577, August 17, 2016 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CAROLINA P. JUEN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185638, August 10, 2016 - HONORABLE ALVIN P. VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY MAYOR OF CABANATUAN CITY, AND SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF CABANATUAN CITY, Petitioners, v. LOURDES MELENCIO S. GRECIA, REPRESENTED BY RENATO GRECIA, AND SANDRA MELENCIO IN REPRESENTATION OF MA. PAZ SALGADO VDA. DE MELENCIO, CONCHITA MELENCIO, CRISTINA MELENCIO AND LEONARDO MELENCIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190143, August 10, 2016 - SPOUSES LOLITA ORENCIA AND PEDRO D. ORENCIA, Petitioners, v. FELISA CRUZ VDA. DE RANIN, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. ESTELA C. TANCHOCO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016 - ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE, Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9920 [Formerly A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691], August 30, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198756, August 16, 2016 - BANCO DE ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioners; RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioners-Intervenors; CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO NETWORKS, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, AND BUREAU OF TREASURY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 7178, August 23, 2016 - VICENTE M. GIMENA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR T. SABIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199239, August 24, 2016 - PERCY MALONESIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER OF AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO), Petitioner, v. ARTURO M. JIZMUNDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216146, August 24, 2016 - ALFREDO L. CHUA, TOMAS L. CHUA AND MERCEDES P. DIAZ, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 187822-23, August 03, 2016 - EVER ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING, INC., VICENTE C. GO AND GEORGE C. GO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (PBCOM), REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT, MR. DOMINGO S. AURE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220399, August 22, 2016 - ENRIQUE Y. SAGUN, Petitioner, v. ANZ GLOBAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS (MANILA), INC., GAY CRUZADA, AND PAULA ALCARAZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174379, August 31, 2016 - E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. (ASSIGNEE OF INVENTORS CARINI, DUNCIA AND WONG), Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR EMMA C. FRANCISCO (IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE), DIRECTOR EPIFANIO M. EVASCO (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DHUECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PATENTS), AND THERAPHARMA, INC., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3541 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3915-P], August 30, 2016 - SYLVIA G. CORPUZ, Complainant, v. CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-16-3542 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 13-4049-P] - PRESIDING JUDGE RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 7, Complainant, v. CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-16-3543 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 13-4074-P] - IRINEO F. MARTINEZ, JR., Complainant, v. CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, RESPONDENT.; OCA IPI No. 14-2731-MTJ - CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 7, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8698, August 31, 2016 - MANUEL B. BERNALDEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILMA DONNA C. ANQUILO-GARCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198160, August 31, 2016 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, v. GREGORIA ADOLFO, GREGORIO LAZARO AND HEIRS OF ELIAS POLICARPIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209385, August 31, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SALUD ABALOS AND JUSTINA CLARISSA P. MAMARIL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189289, August 31, 2016 - GLORIA ZOLETA-SAN AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO SALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199431, August 31, 2016 - STA. FE REALTY, INC. AND VICTORIA SANDEJAS FABREGAS, Petitioners, v. JESUS M. SISON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221848, August 30, 2016 - FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. REY RUECA CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218086, August 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE BALISONG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 197356, August 24, 2016 - EMILIO A. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. CARMELITA TANGKENGKO, MORRIS TANGKENGKO AND RANILLO TANGKENGKO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183173, August 24, 2016 - THE CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Petitioners, v. EJERCITO LIM, DOING BUSINESS AS BONANZA AIR SERVICES, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CAPT. ERNESTO LIM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199497, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELIA CAMANNONG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 211724, August 24, 2016 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE), FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219071, August 24, 2016 - SPOUSES CHARITO M. REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, AND SPOUSES VILMA M. MARAVILLO AND DOMINGO MARAVILLO, JR., Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MALANCE,* NAMELY: ROSALINA M. MALANCE, BERNABE M. MALANCE, BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, AND DOMINGA** M. MALANCE, REPRESENTED BY BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, Respondents.