SILVESTRA MEDINA AND SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA VS. ATTY.

RUFINO
LIZARDO

A.C. NO. 10533. JANUARY 31, 2017

Facts:

Atty. Lizardo is the counsel of Silvestra and her sister, the late Alicia Medina
(Alicia), who is also the mother of Santos. According to Atty. Lizardo, Silvestra
entrusted TCTs No. 13866 and 3900 to him sometime in 1987 because Silvestra,
Santos, and Alicia sold their shares in lots 456, 457 and 458 in favor of a certain
Renato Martinez (Martinez). Atty. Lizardo claims that he refused to return the
subject TCTs because complainants did not secure the written consent of Martinez.
It must be noted that respondent is lawyering for the complainants and at the same
time, lawyering for the interest of Renato Martinez.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Lizardo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

Yes. Atty. Lizardo violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:

Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

In the case at bar, it is undeniable that complainants Silvestra and Santos, on one
hand, and Martinez, on the other, have conflicting interests with regard to the
disputed property, particularly Lot 456 covered by TCT No. 3900 which
complainants assert they never sold to Martinez. Atty. Lizardo now finds himself
arguing against the ownership by Silvestra and Santos of their shares in the
disputed property, which is the very legal position he was bound to defend as their
counsel in the partition case.

As counsels for Silvestra and Alicia, Atty. Lizardo is required to deliver the property
of his client when due or upon demand, and mandated to always be loyal to them
and vigilant to protect their interests, in accordance with the following provisions of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI

A.C. No. 11095, January 31, 2017

Facts:

Disbarment complaint was filed against respondent Atty. Ryan Rey L. Pasagani
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-commission on bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD), that the respondent violated their agreement for the latter to facilitate and
secure a loan to finance the payment of necessary expenses to transfer the title of
a certain property under her name, she claimed that respondent obtained a loan
using their property as a collateral, but atty. Pasagni arrogated the proceeds.

Issue:

Whether or not a malpractice or gross misconduct can be used as grounds for

disbarment of a lawyer.

Held:

The court ruling was in favor of the complainant, the Court found that the
respondent was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in converting the
money of his client to his own use without her consent, his failure to use the
proceeds for the transfer of the title in complainant’s name. He did not only betray
the trust and confidence of his client, he is likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest
and deceitful conduct.
SUSAN LOBERES-PINTAL VS. ATTY. RAMONCITO B. BAYLOSIS

A.C. No. 11545, January 24, 2017

Facts:

Susan Loberes-Pintal (Susan) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Baylosis
for committing perjury, falsification of public documents and the use of falsified
documents. She alleged that Roldan C. Pintal (Roldan) filed a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of their Marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City (RTC); that Atty. Baylosis conspired with Roldan by making it appear that he
was a resident of Caloocan City when in fact he was a resident of Quezon City; and
that Atty. Baylosis notarized the verification and certification against non-forum
shopping of the petition on May 13, 2011, but, at that time, Roldan was out of the
country. Susan submitted a Certification from the Barangay Chairman and a
Certification from the Bureau of Immigration as proof.

Atty. Baylosis denied the accusation and insisted that when Roldan went to his
office in January 2011, he personally interviewed him and asked him to submit his
personal documents; that Roldan provided him a Certification from the Chairman,
that Roldan reviewed the petition and affixed his signature in the Verification and
Certification; that Roldan personally appeared before him, swore in accordance with
law and verified his petition in accordance with the Rules of Court. Atty. Baylosis
further averred that the date of recording on May 13, 2011 of the Verification and
Certification of the petition was an honest mistake and excusable error on the part
of his staff but his claim that Roldan personally appeared before him was true.

The IBP-Board of Governors reversed and set aside the report and recommendation
of the CBD. In its Extended Resolution, the IBP-Board ofGovernors found Atty.
Baylosis guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he made it
appear that Roldan was present during the notarization of the petition on May 13,
2011 and recommended the immediate revocation of his notarial commission and
his disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Baylosis guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

Held:

YES. Without a quibble, Atty. Baylosis was negligent in the performance of his duty
as a notary public when he notarized the petition for declaration of the nullity of
marriage without the presence of Roldan. This was evidenced by the Certification
issued by the Bureau of Immigration that Roldan was not in the Philippines on May
13, 2011 as he had left the Philippines on April 10, 2011 and came back only on
September 8, 2011. Atty. Baylosis'contention that he personally interviewed Roldan
when the latter went into his office and personally read and signed the petition
cannot be accorded a shred of credence. In notarizing a document in the absence of
a party, Atty. Baylosis violated not only the rule on notarial practice but also the
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By affixing his signature and
notarial seal on the document, he attested that Roldan personally appeared before
him on the day it was notarized and verified the contents thereof. His conduct is
fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due
execution of a document that our courts and the public accord to notarized
documents. It must be emphasized that a lawyer commissioned as a notary public,
is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office,
such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It is
for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the public's confidence
in the integrity of the document would be undermined.
ARTHUR O. MONARES VS. ATTY. LEVI P. MUÑOZ

A.C. No. 5582 / A.C. No. 5604 / A.C. No. 5652, January 24, 2017

Facts:

For resolution is the Joint Petition for Review with Prayer for Absolution and/or
Clemency2 (Joint Petition) dated May 14, 2009 filed by respondent Atty. Levi P.
Muñoz (Muñoz), in connection with the complaints for disbarment filed by Arthur 0.
Monares (Monares), Atty. Oliver 0. Olaybal (Olaybal) purportedly representing
Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO), and Benjilieh M. Constante (Constante),
dated January 17, 2002, February 4, 2002 and March 21, 2002, respectively.

Monares is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 9923 filed against Ludolfo Muñoz (Ludolfo)
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City. In his complaint, Monares
alleged that Muñoz represented his brother Ludolfo in the said case during regular
government hours while employed as Provincial Legal Officer of Albay City.

Under the chairmanship of Olaybal, ALECO's old board of directors (BOD) engaged
Muñoz as retained counsel sometime in June 1998. Olaybal averred that Muñoz did
not inform ALECO's old BOD that he was employed as Provincial Legal Officer at
such time. Olaybal raised that after its administrator, the National Electrification
Administration (NEA), deactivated the old BOD on the ground of mismanagement,
Muñoz served as retained counsel of the NEA-appointed team which took over the
management of ALECO. Moreover, Olaybal alleged that Muñoz illegally collected
payments in the form of notarial and professional fees in excess of what was agreed
upon in their retainer agreement.

Constante is the Executive Assistant for Legal Affairs of Sunwest Construction and
Development Corporation (Sunwest). Constante claimed that Mufi oz filed ten ( 10)
cases against Sun west on Ludolfo' s behalf before the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) while he was serving as Provincial Legal Officer.

All three (3) complaints prayed that Muñoz be disbarred for unlawfully engaging in
private practice. In addition, Olaybal sought Muñoz's disbarment for acts of
disloyalty, particularly, for violating the rule against conflict of interest.

To support their position, the complainants raised that Muñoz had been previously
disciplined by the Ombudsman for two (2) counts of unauthorized practice of
profession in OMB-ADM-1-01-0462, and was meted the penaltyof removal and
dismissal from service. The complainants further manifested that Muñoz had been
convicted by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ofLegazpi City in Criminal
Case Nos. 25568 and 25569 for violation of Section 7(b)(2) in relation to Section 11
of Republic Act No. 6713. Muñoz's conviction has since become final pursuant to the
Court's Resolution dated June 14, 2004 in G.R. No. 160668.

In his respective comments to the complaints,9 Muñoz claimed that he had

requested Governor Al Francis C. Bichara (Governor Bichara) for authority to
continue his private practice shortly after his appointment. This request was
granted on July 18, 1995.10 Thereafter, Muñoz submitted the same request to
Rafael C. Alunan III, then Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG).11 On September 8, 1995, Acting Secretary Alexander P.
Aguirre granted Mufi oz' s request, under the following conditions:

1. That no government time, personnel, funds or supplies shall be utilized in

connection (sic) and that no conflict of interest with your present position as
Provincial Legal Officer shall arise thereby;

2. That the time so devoted outside of office hours, the place(s) and under what
circumstances you can engage in private employment shall be fixed by the
Governor of Albay to the end that it will not impair in any way your efficiency; and.

3. That any violation of the above restrictions will be a ground for the cancellation
and/or revocation of this authority.

Pursuant to the DILG's authorization, Governor Bichara imposed the following

conditions upon Muñoz:

a. You cannot handle cases against the Province of Albay;

b. You will be on call and you will have no fix working hours provided that the
efficiency of the Provincial Legal Office shall not be prejudiced;

c. You are exempted in accomplishing your Daily Time Record considering the
limitation already mentioned above; and

d. In addition to the above enumeration, you are to perform functions subject to

limitations in Sec. 481 of RA 7160.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Levi Muñoz may practice privately even though a he is a
government employee?

Held

In his Appeal, Muñoz insisted that when he served as Provincial Legal Officer from
June 1995 to May 2002, he engaged in private practice pursuant to the three (3)
written authorities issued by Governor Bichara, and the written authority of the
DILG issued during his first term, which he claims had never been revoked. Mufi.oz
also argued that no conflict of interest existed between ALECO's old BOD and th'e
NBA management team, since he was engaged as retained counsel of ALECO as an
institution, not its management teams.

Muñoz violated the conditions of his DILG authorization. Muñoz's DILG authorization
prohibited him from utilizing government time for his private practice. As correctly
observed by Commissioner Aguila, Rule XVII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (Omnibus
Rules), requires government officers and employees of all departments and
agencies, except those covered by special laws, to render not less than eight (8)
hours of work a day for five (5) days a week, or a total of forty (40) hours a week.
The number of required weekly working hours may not be reduced, even in cases
where the department or agency adopts a flexible work schedule. Notably, Mufi.oz
did not deny Monares' allegation that he made at least eighty-six (86) court
appearances in connection with at least thirty (30) cases from April 11, 1996 to
August 1, 2001.32 He merely alleged that his private practice did not prejudice the
functions of his office. Court appearances are necessarily made within regular
government working hours, from 8:00 in the morning to 12:00 noon, and 1:00 to
5:00 in the aftemoon. Additional time is likewise required to study each case,
draftpleadings and prepare for trial. The sheer of cases handled by Muñoz clearly
indicates that government time was necessarily utilized in pursuit of his private
practice, in clear violation of the DILG authorization and Rule 6.0234 of the CPR.
Muñoz should have requested for authority to engage in private practice from the
Secretary of DILG for his second and third terms. Acting Secretary Aguirre's grant
of authority cannot be unreasonably construed to have been perpetual. Moreover,
Muñoz cannot claim that he believed in good faith that the authority granted by
Governor Bichara for his second and third terms sufficed. Memorandum No. 17
dated September 4, 1986 (Memorandum 17), which Muñoz himself cites in his Joint
Petition, is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. The power to grant
authority to engage in the practice of one's profession to officers and employees in
the public service lies with the head of the department, in accordance with Section
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules which provides, in part: Sec.
Sec 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business,
vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or
industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of Department:
Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and
employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the
disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted
permission to engage in outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office
hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not impair in
any way the efficiency of the officer or employee.

Muñoz represented conflicting interests. Muñoz cannot elude Olaybal's allegations of

disloyalty. In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, the Court explained the tests to
determine the existence of conflict of interest, thus: There is conflict of interest
when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for
an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the
other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or
will be used. Also, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Levi Muñoz may practice privately even though he is a
government employee?

Held:

Atty. Levi P. Muñoz is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation of Rules
1.01, 6.02, 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Muñoz violated the conditions of his DILG authorization prohibiting him from
utilizing government time for his private practice. Notably, Muñoz did not deny
Monares' allegation that he made at least eighty-six (86) court appearances in
connection with at least thirty (30) cases from April 11, 1996 to August 1, 2001. He
merely alleged that his private practice did not prejudice the functions of his office.

Muñoz represented conflicting interests. Muñoz cannot elude Olaybal's allegations of

disloyalty. In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, the Court explained the tests to
determine the existence of conflict of interest, thus: There is conflict of interest
when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for
an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the
other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or
will be used. Also, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.

EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. VS. ATTY. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY, ET AL.

A.C. NO. 7478, JANUARY 11, 2017

Facts:

Alicias filed an administrative complaint before the Court accusing Macatangay,

Zerna, Ronquillo, and Buenaflor of violation of the Lawyer's Oath or Code of
Professional Responsibility, gross neglect of duty, and gross ignorance of the law.
Alicias alleged that respondents, (1) did not conduct a careful evaluation of the
records; (2) did not hear the arguments of both partes; (3) ignored uncontroverted
documentary evidence adduced by him; (4) erroneously applied established
jurisprudence; (5) denied him due process of law by not furnishing him a copy of
the CSC's Order directing the CSC-NCR to comment and a copy of the CSC-NCR
comment; and (6) willfully did not give him a copy of the Resolution of his petition
for review.

Respondents argued that Alicias was not denied due process because after the
denial of his motion for reconsideration, he still had the available remedy of filing a
petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP Commissioner’s Report
and Recommendation, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit and likewise
denied the motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not the IBP has jurisdiction over an administrative case filed against the
lawyers.

Held:

No. The IBP has no jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint. The
administrative complaint must be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

In the present case, the allegations in Alicias' complaint against the lawyers
aforementioned all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their official duties
as government lawyers working in the CSC, hence, it is within the administrative
disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior or the Office of the Ombudsman.