Dulalia v.

Cajigal
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3492-RTJ
December 4, 2013
Perez, J.
Facts:
Complainant is one of the petitioners in the cases concerning his parents estates, which is
one of the cases assigned to respondent Judge Cajigal. Complainant averred that respondent
judge displayed gross inefficiency by failing to resolve within the prescribed period various
motions. Complainant further claimed that respondent Judge was liable for gross ignorance of
the law.
Respondent judge, on the other hand, denied the allegations. He claimed that the
complaint has no basis in law and in fact since the complainant who failed to get a favorable
judgment filed such complaint to harass him. As regards the charge of gross inefficiency,
respondent Judge claims that the matter could not be resolved immediately due to the complexity
of the case. However he admitted that he may have inadvertently failed to address the motion for
reconsideration.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concluded that the charge of gross
ignorance of the law should be given scant consideration because the propriety of the respondent
judges decision was already raised in the motion for reconsideration. However, the OCA opined
that respondent judge was liable for the undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration,
thus, he should be fined of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent judge displayed gross ignorance of the law
2. Whether or not respondent judge displayed gross inefficiency
Held:
1. No. Complainant failed to establish bad faith on the part of the respondent judge. It is an
established rule that a judge cannot be liable for errors of judgments as long as he acts in
good faith. Ruling otherwise would discourage people from holding judicial positions
since people are not infallible. Should one disagree with the ruling, one can still avail
other remedies under the Rules of Court.
2. Yes. In the absence of improper motive or reason on the part of the judge that could have
compelled respondent judge to delay the resolution of the motion, the delay in the
proceedings can only be attributed to inadvertence considering the complexity of estate
proceedings and numerous motions filed therein. However, as the respondent judge
admitted that he may have inadvertently failed to address the motion for reconsideration,
it is clear that there was delay in the resolution of the motion.
Considering that this is the first infraction of respondent judge in his 15 years of service,
his age, the caseload of his court and his candid admission of his infraction, the Court
admonished respondent judge.

Felipe v. Macapagal
A.C. No. 4549
December 2, 2013
Del Castillo, J.
Facts:
Complainants filed a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. Macapagal.
Complainants claimed that respondent was guilty of dishonesty when he stated that in the
defendants Answer in the civil case that the parties therein are strangers to each others, when in
fact such parties are half-brothers and half-sisters; when he introduced a falsified Certificate of
Marriage as evidence; and when he knowingly filed a baseless pleading. However, respondent
neither filed his comment nor his position paper as ordered by the Supreme Court and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), respectively.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred
Held:
The instances constituting the alleged dishonesty of respondent requires factual
determination, which is outside the ambit of the administrative case. As such, the petition for
disbarment should be dismissed without prejudice. However, the unjustified act of the
respondent of not filing his comment or his position paper constitutes disregard of lawful orders
of the Supreme Court and the IBP. He should comply with these since these are not merely
requests but orders. Hence, respondent was reprimanded for failing for to give due respect to the
Court and the IBP.

Baltazar v. Banez
A.C. No. 9091
December 11, 2013
Sereno, C.J.
Facts:
Complainants, who own three parcels of land in Bataan, executed a Special Power of
Attorney authorizing Gerry Fevidal, a subdivision developer, to enter into and sign all
agreements and concerning the formers lands, in exchange of P35,000,000. However, Fevidal
failed to update complainants of the status of the subdivision project and return the proceeds of
the sold land. Complainants agreed to settle with Fevidal for P10,000,000 but Fevidal failed to
pay them. Complainants then sought the legal services of respondent Atty. Banez for the
preparation of a settlement agreement between complainants and Fevidal. However, respondent
advised complainants to instate actions against Fevidal to recover their properties.
Complainants and respondent signed a contract of legal services, wherein they agreed
that the former would not pay acceptance and appearance fees but they would shoulder the
docket fees. Furthermore, complainants would pay respondent 50% of the recovered properties.
Respondent instituted actions against Fevidal. However, complainants entered into
amicable settlement with Fevidal, withdrew the complaints against Fevidal, and terminated the
services of respondent. Respondent then filed a Motion for Recording of Attorneys Charging
Lien. Complainants subsequently filed a petition for suspension/disbarment against respondent
because of the legal problems brought by respondent. Complainants claimed that respondent
violated Canons 1.01, 1.03, 1.04. 12.02, 15.05, 18.04, and 20.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated the aforementioned Canons of the CPR
Held:
No. The Court is of the opinion that the complaint was filed at the prodding of Fevidal.
The Court further held that the advice of respondent to the complainants of filing an action
against Fevidal instead of entering into an agreement is proper. Respondent did his duty to
protect his clients interests.
However, the agreement entered by complainants and respondent is of champertous
contract, an agreement wherein a lawyer pays the expenses of the proceedings in exchange of
some part of the thing in dispute. This contract is contrary to public policy and to Canon 16.04 of
CPR, which states that lawyers shall not lend money to a client, except when in the interest of
justice, they have to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter they handling for the client.
The contract failed to provide for terms of reimbursement of the money lent by respondent to
complainants. Atty. Banez is thus admonished for violating Canon 16.04 of the CPR.

Heenan v. Espejo
A.C. No. 10050
December 3, 2013
Velasco, JR., J.
Facts:
Complainant Victoria Heenan lent P250,000 to respondent Atty. Erlinda Espejo, who
issued a post-dated check in return. On due date, Atty. Espejo requested Victoria to delay the
deposit of the check since the proceeds of a bank loan was not released yet. When Victoria
deposited the check, it bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Despite the persistent demand of
Victoria, Atty. Espejo did not pay the former.
Victoria then filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Espejo. However, the latter
failed to appear so she was declared in default. The IBP recommended the suspension of Atty.
Espejo for five years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Resolution but lowered the
suspension from five to two years.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Espejo should be suspended for two years
Held:
Yes. Despite the fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan in her private capacity, lawyers
may be disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but also for gross
misconduct outside of his professional capacity. When such misconduct is so gross that renders
the lawyer morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege of being a lawyer, the Court may suspend
or disbar the lawyer. Atty. Espejos issuance of postdated check without sufficient fund and
refusal to obey the orders of the IBP violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; and Canon
11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is thus suspended from practice for two years.

Dagala v. Quesada
A.C. No. 5044
December 2, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Facts:
Complainant, assisted by respondent Atty. Quesada, filed a case before the National
Labor Relations Commission, for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, separation pay, damages and
attorneys fees against Capitol Allied Trading & Transport. However, the case was dismissed for
failure of complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear in the hearings. Complainant then sought the
services of Atty. Adquilen and refiled the case but it was dismissed for failure to submit position
papers.
Complainant, assisted by a new counsel, then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied because it was filed out of time. Complainant then filed administrative cases against Atty.
Quesada and Atty. Adquilen. Atty. Quesada claimed that his failure to file the position paper was
due to complainants failure to give him the employment records and other documents. Atty.
Adquilen, on the other hand, died during the pendency of the case.
The IBP adopted the recommendation of IBP Commissioner, which found Atty. Quesada
guilty of gross negligence in handling complainants case in violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The IBP thus recommended the suspension of
Atty. Quesada from practice of law for one year.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Quesada should be suspended from practice of law for one year for
gross negligence in handling complainants labor case
Held:
Yes. Lawyers are obliged to serve their clients with competence and diligence in order to
protect the latters rights. As such, lawyers are obliged to attend hearings, prepare necessary
documents and prosecute cases. In the present case, Atty. Quesada failed to exercise the required
diligence in handling complainants case by his failure to justify his absence in the hearings in
the labor case, which led the dismissal of the case. He thus violated Canon 17 and Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the CPR.

People v. Castaneda
G.R. No. 208290
December 11, 2013
Per curiam
Facts:
Private respondents Myrna Garcia and Custodio Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. were charged
before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) for misdeclaring imported items. The CTA dismissed the
case for failure of prosecution to establish the guilt of private respondents beyond reasonable
doubt. The Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group, Revenue Collection Monitoring Group, as
counsel for the Bureau of Customs, thus filed a petition for certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not the CTA erred in dismissing the case
Held:
No. The CTA is correct in dismissing the case since the prosecution failed to present the
certified true copies of documentary evidence, identify the misdeclared goods as well as the
accused in court, and file the petition on time. The government lawyers displayed inefficiency in
the administration of justice. The Court reminded the government lawyers that they still remain
officers of the court who are expected to be competent. The Code of Professional Responsibility
likewise applies to lawyers in government service. Thus, the RATS lawyers should be efficient in
the administration of justice.

Re: Letter of Lucena B. Rallos for alleged acts/incidents/occurrences relative to the

resolution(s) issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 06676 by Court of Appeals Executive Justice
Pampio Abarintos and Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Victoria Isabel
Paredes
IPI No. 12-203-CA-J
December 10, 2013
Re: Complaint Filed by Lucena B. Rallos against Justices Gabriel T. Ingles, Pamela Ann
Maximo, and Carmelita S. Manahan
A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA
December 10, 2013
Bersamin, J.
Facts:
The Heirs of Vicente Rallos, one of whom is complainant, sought just compensation from
the government of Cebu City for using their land without their consent. After lengthy litigations,
the case was tried in the Court of Appeals (CA). After the CA rendered its decision, the Supemre
Court received two complaints from Rallos.
In IPI No. 12-203-CA-J, Rallos claimed that parties had the right to be informed of the
inhibition as well the reasons behind such in order to object if the inhibition is invalid. Rallos
prayed that the respondent justices be held liable administratively and criminally.
In A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA, complainant averred that respondent justices are guilty of
serious misconduct because of their negligence and bias when respondent justices enjoined the
execution of the orders and interfered with the Courts ruling in other cases.
Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent justices may be held liable for their alleged erroneous
resolutions
2. Whether or not party-litigants are entitled to be informed of the inhibitions of the Justices
as well as the reasons behind the inhibitions
Held:
1. No. Administrative complaints are not the proper remedies to assail the decisions of the
justices and judges. Judicial errors should be corrected by other remedies such appeal or
writs of certiorari and prohibition.
2. No. In the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, there is nothing that requires the partylitigants to be informed of the inhibition. Nonetheless, a filing of motion for inhibition
will entitle the party-litigants to be notified of the CAs action on the said motion.
However, the Court held that henceforth all the parties in any action or proceedings
should be immediately notified of any mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition
of the Justice who has participated in any action of the court, stating the reason for the
mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition. The requirement of notice is a
measure to ensure that the disqualification or inhibition has not been resorted to in order
to cause injustice to or to prejudice any party or cause.

Re: Verified Complaint of Tomas S. Merdegia against Hon. Vicente S.E. Veloso, Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals, Relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 119461
I.PI. No. 12-205-CA-J
December 10, 2013
Re: Resolution dated October 8, 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-205-CA-J against Atty. Hombono
Adaza II
A.C. No. 10300
December 10, 2013
Brion, J.
Facts:
The Supreme Court issued a Resolution dismissing the complaint of Tomas Merdegia
against Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Veloso. Atty. Adaza, Merdegias counsel was
directed to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt.
Atty. Adaza claimed that he performed his duty as counsel when he assisted Merdegia in
preparing the administrative complaint against Justice Veloso. The two first filed a Motion to
Inhibit Justice Veloso from the case but when the former refused, Merdegia filed an
administrative complaint.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Adaza should be cited in contempt
Held:
Yes. A lawyer has a duty to represent his client with zeal but this must be done within the
bounds provided by law. The administrative complaint filed by Merdegia shows Atty. Adazas
failure to inform his client of the features of the Philippine adversarial system and the substance
of the law on ethics and respect for the judicial system. Administrative case is not the proper
remedy in assailing the order denying the motion for inhibition, but rather a petition for
certiorari.
Considering filing of previous motions for inhibitions against justices of the CA and a
trial judge when they issued decisions unfavorable to his clients, the filing of the present
administrative case shows Atty. Adazas contemptuous conduct. Thus, Atty. Adaza is guilty of
indirect contempt. He is further warned that future similar misbehavior may be a ground for the
institution of disciplinary proceedings against him.

Re: Nomination of Atty. Lynda Chaguile, IBP Ifugao President, as replacement for IBP
Governor for Northern Luzon, Denis B. Habawel
A.M. No. 13-04-03-SC
December 10, 2013
Re: Alleged Nullity of the Election of IBP Southern Luzon Governor Vicente M. Joyas as
IBP Executive Vice President [for 2011-2013]
A.M. No. 13-05-08-SC
December 10, 2013
Re: Letter-Request of the National Secretary of the IBP re Proposed Oath-Taking Before
the Supreme Court of the Elected IBP Regional Governors and the Executive Vice
President for the term 2013 to 2015
A.M. No. 13-06-11-SC
December 10, 2013
Leonen, J.
Facts: