Sunday, May 22, 2011

Case Digest: Northwestern University, Inc. vs. Arquillo

02 August 2005
Ponente: Panganiban, J.


FACTS:


Ben A. Nicolas, in behalf of Northwestern University, filed a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines allegedly reporting that Atty. Macario Arquillo had engaged in conflicting interest by acting as counsel for both complainant and respondent in the very same consolidated case filed to the National Labor Relations Commission. Respondent claims that there is no conflict-of-interests as all parties are said to be on the same side.


For failing to appear in scheduled hearings, Atty. Arquillo is deemed to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings.


ISSUE:


Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:


Yes. 


 The Court held that Atty. Arquillo is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Therefore, a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties involved, after disclosure of the facts. The Court did not agree with Arquillo’s justification of his acts for he should have known that in representing opposing parties, there would be an obvious conflict of interest, regardless of his belief that both parties are on the same side.


Atty. Macario Arquillo was found guilty of misconduct and was hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Case Digest: Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuna, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 123

28 July 2005
Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.


FACTS:

Concerned citizens of the lower court filed an anonymous letter to the Office of the Court Administrator reporting the alleged malpractices of Judge Edmundo Acuna.  Among these are his regular use of expletives and insulting terms such as “putang ina” and “putris,” and his constant berating and embarrassment of people in front of others. It was also reported that he conducted trials and filed decisions for five criminal cases while he was on official leave from the 15th of August to the 15th of September 2001.

The respondent contended that these allegations were exaggerated and the only purpose of which is to harass him, and that part of his odd behaviours that may seem unacceptable to his colleagues were brought about by his mourning due to the loss of his son which was amplified by the poor performance ratings of his staff.  Although he did admit to using such offensive terms, respondent averred that these were not directed to anyone in particular.  He also stated in his defense that while he was issued an Authority to Travel dated 14th of August 2011 to travel to Canada, he still presented evidence on his entries in the daily time records that he was not yet on leave from the 15th to the 21st of August 2011.  He thus had the right and duty to come to court as the case may be.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent’s behaviour and issuance of decisions while on official leave are subject to disciplinary actions.

HELD:

Yes.  The Court held that the use of such expletives is improper for the lauded office of a magistrate of the law.  As the public expects more from such a high and respectable office, the same level of expectation is also placed upon the person who holds it to uphold its respectability and be conscious of his acts in order to maintain its honourability.  A judge is expected to be temperate, patient and courteous in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiability of the judiciary.  As held in Ignacio and Valenzuela, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, to which herein respondent is guilty of.

Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Investigating Judge that overzealousness to work is not a shield from administrative liability for the dire consequences that may effect from the result of his decisions and orders issued while he was supposed to be on official leave.

As Judge Acuna was found guilty of impropriety, he is reprimanded and is sternly warned that repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.




Sunday, May 8, 2011

Case Digest: Quirino Tomlin II vs. Atty. Salvador N. Moya II

23 February 2006

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.

FACTS:

Atty. Salvador Moya II allegedly issued seven postdated checks to Quirino Tomlin II as partial payment for the P600,000.00 that the former borrowed from the latter.  When Tomlin realized that all the said checks were dishonoured by the bank, he made several demands to Moya but the latter still refused to pay his debt.  Thereafter, the complainant filed seven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 to the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan as well as an instant case for disbarment against Moya.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the administrative case for the respondent’s disbarment should be dismissed for violation of the rule on non-forum shopping; and
  2. Whether or not Atty. Moya is guilty of Gross Misconduct and violation or the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:

  1. No.  The instant petition for disbarment was not a violation of the rule against forum shopping.  Forum shopping is only applicable to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.  Furthermore, the main object of the seven criminal cases of the respondent’s violation of BP Blg. 22 is different from the administrative case at hand.  The former refers to the issuance of bouncing checks, while the latter refers to the dishonesty of the respondent in the payment of his debts.
  2. Yes.  Atty. Moya is guilty of Gross Misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  His refusal to pay his monetary obligations His refusal to pay his monetary obligations without justifiable cause, despite acknowledging said obligations and doing so without remorse, fails to comply with the expectation of lawyers to be honest in their dealings – be it in their professional or private affairs.  What is more, his failure to file his answer and verified position paper despite extensions of time is a manifestation of his disrespect for judicial authorities.  For his acts, he was then sentenced to be suspended from practice for two years.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Case Digest: Carmelita I. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Alfredo Castillo

03 August 2005    Per Curiam


FACTS:

Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre.  This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the release of its results.  Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter.  The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of the child.  The Court found him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration.

The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support her.  In his defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his good moral character.  His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his amicability as a husband and father despite the affair.  More than a year since the original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension.

HELD:

The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to the community is a just and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of two years.  Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.