A.C. No.
6317 August 31, 2006 a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the
LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO, Respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint1 was filed by complainant
Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct,
malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he neglected a
legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorneys fees.
According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime in
January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters
Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the
release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property
identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said
bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-
2610.
Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the
hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in
the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No.
B-2610.2
Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the P70,000.00 he
received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the
deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC Case No. B-2610
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna.
The complaint was referred3 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. On September 21, 2005, the Investigating
Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and
9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
the persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.
In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Investigating Commissioner opined that:
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be
made the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him must be
established by convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt a case
which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of its disciplinary powers. The
dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly
demonstrated. x x x.
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that the
Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the recovery of the Php180,000.00
savings account of complainant subsequent acts and events say otherwise, to wit:
1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings deposit is
too high;
2.) Respondent actively acted as complainants lawyer to effectuate the compromise
agreement.
By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as
commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring
complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading
assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed
property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.4
The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:
WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations to protect the
public and the legal profession from his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended
for Six (6) months with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will be severely
dealt with.5
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the investigating
commissioner.6
We agree with the findings of the IBP.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and
continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the
legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.7
Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct8 and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence. 9 They
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence in connection
therewith shall render them liable.10
Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery of
complainants savings deposit from Planters Development Bank cannot be sustained.
Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in the drafting of the compromise
agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610.
Respondent admitted that he explained the contents of the agreement to complainant
before the latter affixed her signature. Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner
observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit
amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.11
Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations
in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the
foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already expired thus
consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it. 12 As
found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions
because respondent misled her to believe that she could still redeem the property after
three years from the foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his clients interests
commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of
the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. The
canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he
should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.13
Respondents admission14 that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a
referral fee does not release him from liability. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain
cases.15
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyers oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful
order of a superior court; and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without
authority.
In Santos v. Lazaro16 and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,17 we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility is a basic postulate in legal ethics. When a lawyer takes a
clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.
The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to
his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his clients case. Once he
agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he
fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer should accept only
as much cases as he can efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his clients
interests. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal
matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost fidelity is
demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his clients cause.18
In view of the foregoing, we find that suspension from the practice of law for six months
is warranted. In addition, he is directed to return to complainant the amount he
received by way of legal fees pursuant to existing jurisprudence.19
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02,
18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any
similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN,
within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C.
Lijauco and to submit to this Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days
therefrom.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP,
as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
August 3, 2005
CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
In the Decision dated March 6, 2003, the Court found respondent Atty. Alfredo Castillo
guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and imposed upon him the penalty of Indefinite
Suspension.1 Respondent, who was already married with three children, had an affair
with complainant between 1996 to 1997, while he was reviewing for the bar until
before the release of the results thereof. Complainant got pregnant and respondent,
who was then already a lawyer, executed a notarized affidavit acknowledging the child
as his with a promise to support said child. Upon the birth of the child, however,
respondent started to refuse recognizing the child and from giving her any form of
support.
On April 11, 2003, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration seeking compassion
and forgiveness from this Court. He submitted certificates from government and civic
organizations appreciating his services as a lawyer, certificates of attendance from
religious groups, and certificates of good moral character from judges and lawyers in
Occidental Mindoro.2
On July 8, 2003, the Court required complainant and the IBP to file comment thereon. 3
On August 11, 2003, the IBP Occidental Mindoro Chapter issued a Resolution (No. 01-
2003) recommending the exoneration of respondent from administrative liability. It
stated that the suspension of respondent, who has served as Clerk of Court, Public
Attorney and 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, would cause a great loss to the
community; that respondent has shown integrity and moral uprightness in the
performance of his official functions; that the acts imputed to him may be attributed to
his "youthful indiscretion period"; and that respondent has mended his ways after
taking his oath as member of the bar.4
The IBP, through Director for Bar Discipline, Rogelio Vinluan, gave its Comment dated
August 15, 2003, stating that the motion for reconsideration should be denied until
respondent admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support her. 5
On August 17, 2003, complainant submitted her Comment stating that respondents
motion for reconsideration should be denied since respondent has not truly repented as
he is still not supporting his child.6
On August 25, 2003, respondents wife, Livelyn Castillo, submitted a handwritten letter
stating that respondent is loving and "maasikaso" and while it is true that respondent
had an affair with complainant, such was only
because of human frailty. She claims that complainant threatened to file the present
case after respondent ended their illicit affair. Complainant also used threat to compel
respondent to sign the affidavit of acknowledgement and support. Livelyn further avers
that respondent is the sole breadwinner of the family and that their family will be
gravely affected by his suspension.7
On August 28, 2003, respondent filed a Reply to the Comment of the IBP stating that if
the acts acknowledging and giving support to the child of the complainant are the
proofs of his remorse, then he shall comply unconditionally.8
On September 23, 2003, the Court required complainant to file comment on Livelyns
letter.9
On January 13, 2004, complainants counsel said that while he sympathizes with Livelyn
and her children, respondent has not taken any move to support complainant and her
child to repair the damage done to them.10
On March 3, 2005, respondent, in his Reply to complainants Comment, reiterated his
willingness to support the child if only to show his
remorse. He attached a photocopy of post dated checks addressed to complainant for
the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of P2,000.00 each.11
On March 4, 2005, Livelyn Castillo, sent another handwritten letter expressing that it is
unfair for her and her three children that respondent had to support complainants
daughter when it is not clear who the childs father is. Livelyn argues that complainant
should have filed a case for support where the paternity of the child could be
determined and not use the present administrative case to get support from
respondent.12
On April 11, 2005, Atty. Luzviminda Puno sent a letter to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro, asking whether or not respondent is still connected
with said office despite having been indefinitely suspended by this Court. It replied on
May 10, 2005 that respondent is still connected with their office; that he has been
regularly receiving his salary and benefits; and that this was the first time that they
received communication concerning respondents administrative case.13
Respondent gave his Comment dated May 9, 2005 stating that he continued to
discharge his duties and received salary and benefits in connection therewith since he
filed a timely motion for reconsideration thus the case has not yet attained finality. 14
In view of respondents show of repentance and active service to the community, the
Court deems it just and reasonable to convert the penalty of indefinite suspension to a
definite period of two years suspension.
WHEREFORE, respondents motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The indefinite
suspension imposed on him by the Court in its Decision dated March 6, 2003
is REDUCED to TWO YEARS suspension effective from date of receipt of herein
Resolution.
Complainants further claim for support of her child should be addressed to the proper
court in a proper case.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. Castillos record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and a copy thereof be furnished the IBP, all courts throughout the country
and the Department of Justice including the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Occidental Mindoro.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ June 20, 2012
JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ANGELINA P. CIOCON, MARIVIT P. CIOCON-HERNANDEZ, and
REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR., Complainants,
vs.
JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos
City, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Juvy P. Ciocon-Reer, Angelina P. Ciocon, Marivit P. Ciocon-Hernandez, and Remberto C.
Karaan, Sr. (complainants) filed an administrative complaint against Judge Antonio C.
Lubao (Judge Lubao) of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 22, for
gross ignorance of the law, rules or procedures; gross incompetence and inefficiency;
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019; violations of Articles 171 and 172 of
the Revised Penal Code; violations of pertinent provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, The New Code of Judicial Conduct per A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, and Canons of
Judicial Ethics; and dishonesty and grave misconduct.
The Antecedent Facts
Complainants are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7819 (Juvy P. Ciocon-Reer, et al. v.
Gaspar Mayo, et al.) for Unlawful Detainer, Damages, Injunction, etc., an appealed case
from the Municipal Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 3. Complainants alleged
that on 12 September 2008, Judge Lubao issued an Order directing the parties to submit
their respective memoranda within 30 days from receipt of the order. Complainants
further alleged that on 30 September 2008, a copy of the order was sent by registered
mail to the defendants, which they should have received within one week or on 7
October 2008. Complainants alleged that the 30-day period within which to submit
memoranda expired on 6 November 2008. Since the defendants failed to submit their
memorandum on 6 November 2008, complainants alleged that they should be deemed
to have waived their right to adduce evidence and Judge Lubao should have decided the
case. Yet, four months passed from 6 November 2008 and Judge Lubao still failed to
make his decision.
In his Comment, Judge Lubao explained that the parties were required to submit their
respective memoranda on 12 September 2008. The Order was sent to the parties
through registered mail on 30 September 2008. Judge Lubao alleged that the plaintiffs
submitted their memorandum on 10 November 2008 but the court did not receive the
registry return card on the notice to the defendants. On 10 December 2008, the branch
clerk of court sent a letter-request to the Post Office of General Santos City asking for
certification as to when the Order of 12 September 2008, sent under Registry Receipt
No. 690, was received by the defendants. However, the court did not receive any reply
from the Post Office.
Judge Lubao further explained that on 20 May 2009, for the greater interest of
substantial justice, the defendants were given their last chance to submit their
memorandum within 30 days from receipt of the order. In the same order, he directed
the plaintiffs to coordinate with the branch sheriff for personal delivery of the order to
the defendants. However, the plaintiffs failed to coordinate with the branch sheriff and
the order was sent to the defendants, again by registered mail, only on 17 June 2009.
Judge Lubao informed the Court that complainant Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. (Karaan) is
engaging in the practice of law even though he is not a lawyer. Judge Lubao asked this
Court to require Karaan to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for
unauthorized practice of law.
Karaan filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Judge Lubaos failure to submit his
comment on time to complainants administrative complaint is a violation of the existing
rules and procedure and amounts to gross ignorance of the law. As regards his alleged
unauthorized practice of law, Karaan alleged that Judge Lubao was merely trying to
evade the issues at hand.
The Findings of the OCA
In its Memorandum dated 13 April 2010, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
reported that a verification from the Docket and Clearance Division of its Office revealed
that Karaan also filed numerous administrative complaints1 against judges from
different courts, all of which were dismissed by this Court.
In its evaluation of the case, the OCA found that there was no evidence to show that the
orders issued by Judge Lubao were tainted with fraud, dishonesty or bad faith. The OCA
stated that the matters raised by complainants could only be questioned through
judicial remedies under the Rules of Court and not by way of an administrative
complaint. The OCA stated that Karaan could not simply assume that the order of 12
September 2008 had been received by the defendants without the registry return card
which was not returned to the trial court.
The OCA found that based on the pleadings attached to the records, it would appear
that Karaan was engaged in the practice of law. The OCA also noted the numerous
frivolous and administrative complaints filed by Karaan against several judges which
tend to mock the judicial system.
The OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Judge Lubao for lack of
merit. The OCA further recommended that Karaan be required to show cause why he
should not be cited for contempt of court for violation of Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
In its Resolution dated 24 November 2010, this Court dismissed the complaint against
Judge Lubao for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit. This Court likewise
directed Karaan to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for violating
Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Karaan filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the complaint against Judge
Lubao. Karaan denied that he had been assuming to be an attorney or an officer of the
court and acting as such without authority. He alleged that he did not indicate any PTR,
Attorneys Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number in his documents. He further stated that
A.M. No. 07-1674 filed against Judge Lindo was not actually dismissed as reported by
the OCA.
Karaan thereafter filed Supplemental Arguments to the motion for reconsideration and
compliance to the show cause order. Karaan reiterated that he never represented
himself to anyone as a lawyer or officer of the court and that his paralegal services,
rendered free of charge, were all for the public good. He stated that he assists
organizations which represent the interests of senior citizens, the indigents, and
members of the community with limited means.
In a Memorandum dated 8 November 2011, the OCA found no merit in the motion for
reconsideration. The OCA noted Judge Lubaos explanation that the case was summarily
dismissed by the municipal trial court without service of summons on the defendants.
Thus, Judge Lubao deemed it proper to issue the order requiring all parties to submit
their memorandum to give all concerned the opportunity to be heard. The OCA stated
that the remedy against Judge Lubaos action was judicial in nature. The OCA found that
the claim of Karaan that he could prove the receipt of the order by one Mr. Mayo is
immaterial because it was not in the records of the case where Judge Karaan based his
order.
The OCA noted that Karaan, through the use of intemperate and slanderous language,
continually attributed all sorts of malicious motives and nefarious schemes to Judge
Lubao regarding the conduct of his official function but failed to substantiate his
allegations. The OCA further noted that this case is just one of the many cases Karaan
filed against various judges in other courts where the same pattern of accusations could
be observed.
The OCA found Karaans explanation on the show cause order unsatisfactory. The OCA
noted Karaans modus operandi of offering free paralegal advice and then making the
parties execute a special power of attorney that would make him an agent of the
litigants and would allow him to file suits, pleadings and motions with himself as one of
the plaintiffs acting on behalf of his "clients." The OCA noted that Karaans services, on
behalf of the underprivileged he claimed to be helping, fall within the practice of law.
The OCA recommended that Karaan be declared liable for indirect contempt and be
sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for 10 days at the Manila City Jail and to pay
a fine of P1,000 with a warning that a repetition of any of the offenses, or any similar or
other offense, against the courts, judges or court employees will merit more serious
sanctions.
The Ruling of this Court
We agree with the OCAs recommendation that the motion for reconsideration of the
Courts 24 November 2010 Resolution dismissing the complaint against Judge Lubao has
no merit.
Not all administrative complaints against judges merit a corresponding penalty. In the
absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are
not subject to disciplinary action.2 We agree with the OCA that the remedy of the
complainants in this case is judicial in nature. Hence, the denial of their motion for
reconsideration of this Courts 24 November 2010 Resolution dismissing the
administrative case against Judge Lubao is in order. As the OCA stated, Karaan could not
make assumptions as to when the defendants received the copy of Judge Lubaos order
without the registry return receipt. While Karaan claimed that he knew when one of the
parties received a copy of the order, this claim was unsupported by evidence and was
not in the records of the case when Judge Lubao issued his 20 May 2009 Order giving
the defendants their last chance to submit their memorandum. The records would also
show that Judge Lubao had been very careful in his actions on the case, as his branch
clerk of court even wrote the Post Office of General Santos City asking for certification
as to when the Order of 12 September 2008, sent under Registry Receipt No. 690, was
received by the defendants. There was no evidence that Judge Lubao acted arbitrarily or
in bad faith. Further, Judge Lubao could not be faulted for trying to give all the parties
an opportunity to be heard considering that the records of the case would show that the
court a quo summarily dismissed the case without issuing summons to the defendants.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for reconsideration of the Courts Resolution dated
24 November 2010 dismissing the complaint against Judge Antonio C. Lubao for being
judicial in nature. We find REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR. GUILTY of indirect contempt
under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and impose on him a
Fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000).

We likewise agree with the OCA that Karaan was engaged in unauthorized practice of Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land for their guidance and
law. information. The courts and court employees are further directed to report to the Office
of the Court Administrator any further appearance by Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. before
In Cayetano v. Monsod,3 the Court ruled that "practice of law" means any activity, in or their sala.
out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually SO ORDERED.
performed by members of the legal profession.4 Generally, to practice law is to render
any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. 5 Here, the OCA
was able to establish the pattern in Karaans unauthorized practice of law. He would
require the parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow him to
join them as one of the plaintiffs as their attorney-in-fact. Then, he would file the
necessary complaint and other pleadings "acting for and in his own behalf and as
attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the parties. The fact that Karaan did not
indicate in the pleadings that he was a member of the Bar, or any PTR, Attorneys Roll,
or MCLE Compliance Number does not detract from the fact that, by his actions, he was
actually engaged in the practice of law.

Under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a person "[a]ssuming to
be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority," is liable for
indirect contempt of court. Under Section 7 of the same rules, a respondent adjudged
guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of
equivalent or higher rank "may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand
pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both." If a respondent is
adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a lower court, he "may be punished by a
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month,
or both."

Following the ruling of this Court in In re: Joaquin T. Borromeo,6 the OCA recommended
that Karaan be cited for indirect contempt and be sentenced to serve an imprisonment
of ten days at the Manila City Jail, and to pay a fine of P1,000 with a warning that a
repetition of any of the offenses, or any similar or other offense against the courts,
judges or court employees will merit further and more serious sanctions. The OCA
further recommended that a memorandum be issued to all courts of the land to notify
the judges and court employees of Karaans unauthorized practice of law and to report
to the OCA any further appearance to be made by Karaan. However, the records would
show that Karaan is already 71 years old. In consideration of his old age and his state of
health, we deem it proper to remove the penalty of imprisonment as recommended by
the OCA and instead increase the recommended fine to P10,000.