11 TING-DUMALI v TORRES
FACTS:
§ Isidra
Ting-Dumali charges Rolando Torres with violating his oath as a lawyer and
canons of legal and judicial ethics.
§ Isidra’s
parents died intestate and left many parcels of land to their 6 children
(Isidra, Marcelina, Miriam, Eliseo and Vicente and Felicisima (married to
Rolando Torres))
§ Torres
consented to the forgery of Isidra’s signature for an Extrajudicial settlement
making it appear that his wife and Miriam were the only sole heirs.
§ Torres,
on a reconstitution hearing, presented false testimony that Miriam and
Felicisima were the only sole heirs
§ Torres
presented the reconstituted deed to the RD to enable them to profit by selling
the land
§ Torres
contends that his acts were done in good faith believing for himself that his
and the siblings had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. That the
false testimony was a clear oversight. And that his conformity through his
signature was pro forma because the property was a paraphernal property of
Marcelina and his wife.
§ Investigating
Commissioner of IBP suggested disbarment
ISSUE: WoN Torres should be disbarred?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1.
The lawyer’s oath, to which all
lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the
pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to
be forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.
2.
A lawyer is the servant of the law
and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration
of law and the dispensation of justice, he should make himself more an exemplar
for others to emulate and he should make himself more an exemplar for others to
emulate and he should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
3.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is
meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.
12 MACARRUBO v MACARRUBO
Facts:
Florence
Macarrubo by herself and on behalf of her 2 children files a complaint for
disbarment against Edmundo Macarrubo alleging that Edmundo deceived her
into marrying him
despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen Esparza.
Florence further
averred that Edmundo entered into a 3rd marriage with Josephine Constantino;
and that he abandoned Florence without providing them w/ regular
support.
Edmundo denied
the allegations, insisting instead that complainant Florence was fully aware of
his prior subsisting marriage, but that Florence dragged Edmundo against his
will to a 'sham wedding'.
Edmundo submitted
the decision of RTC declaring his marriage to complainant void ab initio. Edmundo claimed that he left complainant and
their 2 children w/ her consent.
Issue:
W/n Edmundo
should be disbarred...
Held:
Yes.
Facts show that
while Edmundo has a subsisting marriage w/ Helen Esparza s/ whom he had 2
children, he entered into a 2nd marriage with complainant. While the
marriage between
complainant Florence and Edmundo has been annulled by final judgment, this does
not cleanse his conduct of impropriety.
Even assuming
arguendo that Edmunod was coerced by complainant to marry her, the duress has
ceased after wedding day. Edmundo having
freely cohabited with her
and even begot a
2nd child.
The decision of
RTC annulling their marriage is not res judicata on the final resolution of
this case. A disbarment case is sui
generis for it is neither purely civil nor criminal but is rather an investigation
by the court on the conduct of its officers.
13 SICAT v ARIOLA
Facts:
§ Arturo Sicat, Board Member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Rizal charged Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola of committing fraud, deceit, and falsehood in
notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
§ Said SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito
Benitez, of the JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management. Said company had a contract with the
Municipality of Cainta for the construction of low cost houses.
§ What is fraudulent about it is the fact that the
SPA was notarized more than 2 months after the death of Benitez, the person who
supposedly executed it.
§ P3,700T was paid to JC Benitez Architect and
Technical Management for services not rendered (as consultants).
§ Ariola claims that the document he notarized was
superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, and therefore he should be
exonerated – the document was cancelled the same day he notarized it, hence
legally there was no public document that existed.
Issue:
§ W/N Ariola can be held liable.
Held:
§ Yes.
§ Notaries public should not authenticate documents
unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed them
an personally appeared before the, to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein.
§ His assertion of falsehood in a public document
contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
§ Ariola is disbarred, and not merely suspended for a
year.
14 CHUA v MESINA, Jr
Facts:
§ Atty
Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The
spouses leased a building owned by Mesina’s family. The property, however, was
actually mortgaged in favor of a bank for a loan obtained by Mesina’s mother—Felicisima
Melencio (who was the registered owner as well).
§ When
Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank, the spouses were
convinced by Mesina to help his mother in consideration for the purchase of the
same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale was made conveying the property to
the spouses.
§ But
when the spouses were appraised for capital gains tax, Atty Mesina suggested to
execute another deed of sale—this time, the date of the transaction is 1979,
which is before the effectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax.
§ Not
long after the title was handed over to the spouses, another lessee of the
building—Tecson—questioned the transaction as he was, himself, interested in
buying the property. Tecson filed charges for falsification of documents.
§ To
avoid the falsification charge, Mesina proposed to simulate a deed of sale
wherein the spouses would appear to resell the property to Felicisima. A new
title was issued to Felicisima by virtue of said deed but this was entrusted in
the hands of the spouses.
§ Later
on, Tecson desisted from pursuing the charges. Meanwhile, Mesina borrowed the
title of the property from the spouses and promised to transfer, yet again,
title in the name of the spouses.
§ But
Mesina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the property
is being offered to a public sale. Hence the action. The case was investigated
by the IBP and recommended that Mesina be suspended for gross misconduct.
Issue:
Was Atty. Mesina guilty of gross
misconduct?
Held:
Blimey! Of course! When Atty Mesina advised
Chua to execute a deed of sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital
gains tax, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes.
When he convinced Chua to execute another deed to make it appear that the
property was conveyed back to Felicisima, Mesina committed dishonesty. And when
he obtained the title upon the misrepresentation that he will return the same
after 4 months, he committed dishonesty again. There were also badges of fraud
that can be attributed to Mesina as there were marked differences in the
signatures of Felicisima.
Clearly, Mesina violated his oath of office
and Canons 1, 7, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His
disbarment is warranted.
15 DE YSASI III v NLRC
FACTS
§ This
is a case filed by a son against his father
§ ‘Father’
employed ‘Son’ as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao
§ ‘Son’
suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate occasions, June
and August 1982
§ ‘Father’
took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive compensation
§ However,
in April 1984, ‘Father’ ceased to pay ‘Son’s’ salary
§ ‘Son’
filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and payment of full
back wages
§ NLRC
dismissed case stating that ‘Son’ has abandoned his work and termination is for
a valid cause though ordered ‘Father’ to pay P5,000 as penalty for failure to
serve notice of said termination to son
ISSUE W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
HELD YES
RATIO
§ Article
282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may valid terminate
an employment
§ ‘Father’
banks on the fact that ‘Son’ has abandoned his work
§ However,
to constitute abandonment there must be a clear, deliberate and justified
refusal to resume employment and not mere absence
§ In
the case at bar, the reason for the ‘Son’s’ absence was due to his illness of
which Father was aware of since he paid hospital and medical bills
§ ‘Father’
is ordered to pay ‘Son’ backwages in lieu of reinstatement and separation pay
equivalent to 1 month for every year of service
ISSUE W/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
HELD NO
RATIO
§ Rule
1.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides “a lawyer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit
of a fair settlement”
§ In
the case at bar, records do not show that counsel of both parties took pains to
initiate steps geared toward a rapprochment between their clients
§ In
the same manner, the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the spirit of
the Labor Code as he did not exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement
of the labor dispute
No comments:
Post a Comment