UberDigests.

info

Home

Full Texts

Legal English

Law Student Blog

Quizzes and Exams

LAW MEMES

2014 BAR EXAM RESULTS

About Uber Digests

Be Social! Let's Connect!

FacebookTwitter

Salvacion Cordova vs Atty. Laurence Cordova

August 14, 2012

Share this...

Share on Facebook

Facebook

0Tweet about this on Twitter

Twitter

Share on Google+

Google+

0Share on Reddit

Reddit

0Pin on Pinterest

Pinterest
0Share on LinkedIn

Linkedin

0Email this to someone

email

Print this page

Print

ADVERTISEMENTS

179 SCRA 680 – Legal Ethics – Moral Delinquency

In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left his
wife and children to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a
reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still continued to
cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman and worse, he took one of his
children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion.

In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova. Eventually, multiple hearing
dates were sent but no hearing took place because neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a
telegraphic message to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she and her husband has
reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit her evidence ex parte, merely
recommended the reprimand and admonishment of Cordova.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.

HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been morally
reformed and that there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a person can be
admitted to the bar, one requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That requirement is not
exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that
requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. The moral
delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes
“a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage” such was the case in the case at bar.

Facts: After the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter “IBP”)
held on June 3, 1989, the newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of office before the
Supreme Court en banc. However, disturbed by the widespread reports from lawyers who had witnessed
or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of some
newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by the main
protagonists for the office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon
Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious intervention of
certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws
which prohibit such activities. The Supreme Court en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the
Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the
veracity of the reports.

The election process itself (i.e. the voting and the canvassing of votes on June 3, 1989) was unanimously
adjudged by the participants and observers to be above board. What the Court viewed with considerable
concern was the reported electioneering and extravagance that characterized the campaign conducted
by the three candidates for president of the IBP.

The Court en banc formed a committee and total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in
response to subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the conduct of the elections.

Issue: Whether or not IBP by-laws were violated.

Decision: IBP by­laws were violated. Elections held on June 3,1989 be annulled, relevant by­laws be amended as
per the court’s resolution and new elections be held such that the persons named in the resolution cannot contest for
any IBP positionA.C. No. 10303               April 22, 2015
 JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, Respondent

FACTS:  On August 8, 2007, complainant Joy A. Gimeno (Cimeno) filed a complaint 3  with the IBP's

Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a notary public's office; (2)
falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language; and (4) violation of lawyer­client
trust. In her complaint, Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's admission to the Bar and receipt of
his notarial commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale on
March   29,   2002.   She   also   accused   Atty.   Zaide   of   making   false   and   irregular   entries   in   his   notarial
registers.

On   October   4,   2007,   the   IBP   CBD   issued   an   order   setting   the   case   for   mandatory   conference.
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide administratively liable
for   violating   the   Notarial   Practice   Rules,   representing   conflicting   interests,   and   using   abusive   and
insulting language in his pleadings.

He noted that Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules when he
maintained several active notarial registers in different offices. These provisions respectively require a
notary   public   to   "keep,   maintain,   protect   and   provide   for   lawful   inspection,   a   chronological   official
register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered papers" and to "keep only
one active notarial register at any given time.

Finally, the investigating commissioner noted that Atty. Zaide used intemperate, offensive, and abusive
language   when   he   called   Gimeno   a   "notorious   extortionist"   in   one   of   his   pleadings.  

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules
when he maintained several active notarial registers in different offices and violated Notarial Practice
Rules.

HELD: YES. The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires anotary public to maintain only one (1) active
notarial register andensure that the entries in it are chronologically arranged. The “oneactive notarial
register” rule is in place to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial regiters to different
offices manned by assistants who perform notarial services on his behalf.
Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must also personally administer
the  notarial   acts29  that   the  law   authorizes   him   to  execute.   This   important   duty  is   vested  with  public
interest. Thus, no other person, other than the notary public, should perform it.

This Court stresses that a notary public should not trivialize his functions as his powers and duties are
impressed with public interest. A Notary public's office is not merely an income­generating venture. It is a
public duty that each lawyer who has been privileged to receive a notarial commission must faithfully and
conscientiously perform.

Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his notarial commission. His flagrant
violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules is not merely a simple and excusable
negligence. It amounts to a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes." The prohibition on the use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language in
a lawyer's professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other person, is based on the
following canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Canon   8   ­   A   lawyer   shall   conduct   himself   with   courtesy,   fairness   and   candor   toward   his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 ­ A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 11 ­ A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule   11.03   ­   A   lawyer   shall   abstain   from   scandalous,   offensive   or   menacing   language   or
behavior before the Courts. (emphasis supplied)

As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman case, called Gimeno a
"notorious   extortionist."   And   in   another   case,   Gimeno   observed   that   Atty.   Zaide   used   the   following
demeaning and immoderate language in presenting his comment against his opposing counsel.

Her declaration in Public put a shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in the whole
Justice System, and the Department of Justice in particular, where the taxpayers paid for her salary over
her incompetence and poor performance as a prosecutor...This is a clear manifestation that the Public
prosecutor suffers serious mental incompetence as regard her mandate as an Assistant City Prosecutor. 35
(emphasis supplied)

This  clearly confirms  Atty.  Zaide's  lack  of  restraint  in the  use  and choice  of  his  words  ­  a  conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court.
While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the
use  of   offensive  and  abusive  language.   Language   abounds   with  countless   possibilities   for   one   to  be
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. 36

On  many occasions,   the  Court   has   reminded  the   members  of   the   Bar   to  abstain from  any  offensive
personality and to refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness. In
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings, must be
dignified.

Yared v. Ilarde FACTS: Estrella Yared, substituted by Carmen Tiongco because the former is no dead,
and !ose Tiongco ere o""osing "arties to a "ro"erty in litigation. Carmen directly #led a $otion for
%econsideration to the Su"reme Court because !udge Ilarde of the %TC ordered the cancellation of
annotation of notices of lis "endens. The Su"reme Court noticed and commented that Carmen has failed
to com"ly ith the "rinci"le of &udicial hierarchy and that she should have #led the "etition in the CA
#rst. 'oever, the Su"reme Court also noticed the im"ro"er and unethical language em"loyed by !ose
Tiangco, ho as also a counsel for the "rivate res"ondents, in his "leadings and motions #led both in SC
and loer court. 'e described the counsel of the "etitioner, Atty. $arciana (eguma, )a rambunctious
reastler*ty"e female of + ho does not ear a dress hich is not red, and ho stam"edes into the court
room li-e a mad fury and ho s"ea-s slang English to conceal her faulty grammar. !ose Tiongco alleged
that Atty. (eguma does that )to "lease and tenderi/e and seeten toards her on self the readily
available Carmelo Tiongco, an unmarried mesti/o ho lives ith Carmen. 'e further described Atty.
(eguma as )an unmarried maiden of certain age and a )love*cra/ed female A"ache ho is ready to s-in
the defendant alive for not being a bastard and a )horned s"inster and man*hungry virago and female
bull of an Ama/on. 'e also stated that Atty. (eguma is using 0A1 as a )marriage bureau for her on
bene#t. ISS2E3S: 435 !ose Tiongco, being also one of the counsels of the defendants, violated the Code
of 0rofessional %es"onsibility 'E6(: Yes. 4ith the language that he em"loyed, he obviously violated Canon
7*A %ule 7.89 hich states that a layer shall not, in his "rofessional dealings, use languages hich is
abusive, oensive, or otherise im"ro"er. 'e also violated %ule 99.8; hich says that a layer shall abstain
from scandalous, oensive, or menacing language before the courts. The SC also cited %omero vs <alle, )
althoughalloed some latitude of remar-s or comment in furtherance of the cause he u"holds, his
arguments, both ritten or oral, should be gracious to both court and o""osing counsel and be of such
ords as may be "ro"erly addressed by one gentleman to another. !ose Tiongco as merely arned.
5ote: In the #rst "art of the case, even the title of the case, it as not mentioned hether !ose Tiongco is
a layer or not. Then, there=s one sentence hich addressed him )Atty. !

BASILIO C. GUTIERREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO N. ZULUETA, Respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM.:

This case pertains to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the herein complainant Basilio C. Gutierrez
against the herein respondent Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta.

On October 13, 1980, the complainant filed with this Court a sworn letter-complaint dated October 11,
1980 seeking the disbarment of the respondent lawyer on the grounds of dishonesty and conduct
unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.

The complainant alleges that the respondent lawyer was his counsel in two cases, namely, a workmen’s
compensation case and a civil case filed with the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga Del Sur. The
complaint concerns the latter case. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The complainant filed the said civil case against his former employer, the Singer Sewing Machine
Company. The trial court ruled in his favor. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said appellate court
reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of the company. It is categorically stated in the
said decision that the complainant did not file a brief. Thus, he maintains that the case was resolved
against him primarily because his lawyer, the herein respondent, did not file the required brief with the
appellate court and such omission is attributable to the dishonesty of the respondent lawyer.

In support of his contention, the complainant alleges that sometime in August 1976, the respondent
lawyer, who was then in Manila, wired him to send the amount of P400.00 to cover the expenses in
relation to the preparation and printing of the appellee’s brief, and upon receipt of the message, he sent
the said amount to the respondent lawyer through the Philippine National Bank. He also alleges that he
sent a telegram to the respondent lawyer for the purpose of informing the latter that the P400.00 can be
obtained at the Sampaloc, Manila branch office of the same bank.
It appears that sometime thereafter, the respondent lawyer assured the complainant that the brief had
already been filed in court and that a copy thereof will be made available to the latter in due time.

It also appears that immediately after the complainant received a copy of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, he reported the matter to the provincial governor inasmuch as the respondent lawyer is the
provincial legal counsel. An investigation ensued but the same failed to settle the problem.

As stated earlier, the complainant eventually brought the matter to the attention of this Court. On April
20, 1981, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation,
report and recommendation.

In the investigation that ensued, the respondent lawyer testified that he received the amount of P400.00
from the complainant for the purpose of preparing the said brief and that he gave the said amount to his
secretary to cover the expenses to be incurred in such preparation. He also testified that he had to leave
for Pagadian City at that time and that he instructed his secretary to attend to the filing of the brief. He
likewise stated that sometime thereafter, his secretary assured him that the brief had been filed already.
He also said that he could not furnish the complainant with a copy of the brief inasmuch as his secretary,
for undisclosed reasons, left the office, taking with her his records and his typewriter. The respondent
lawyer admits that he received the additional amount of P100.00 from the complainant for the purpose
of securing a copy of the brief for the latter. 1

In due time, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its report recommending therein that the
respondent lawyer be found guilty of not having exercised the due diligence required of a member of the
legal profession in connection with his duties to his clients and accordingly impose upon him the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. 2

The record of the case undoubtedly discloses that the respondent lawyer failed to exercise due diligence
in protecting and attending to the interest of his client, the herein complainant. The failure of the
respondent lawyer to undertake the necessary measures to submit the required brief certainly caused
material prejudice to the complainant inasmuch as the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial
court which was in favor of the latter. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the effect that the failure is attributable to the
negligence of his secretary is devoid of merit. A responsible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in
his office with respect to all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not delegate this
responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his office secretary. If it were otherwise, irresponsible members
of the legal profession can avoid appropriate disciplinary action by simply disavowing liability and
attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of the office secretary. Such situation will not be
countenanced by this Court.

In sum, therefore, this Court is of the well-considered opinion that the respondent lawyer failed to live
up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal profession. His suspension from the
practice of law is in order.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year effective from the date of his receipt of this resolution. He is advised to henceforth exercise
greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards his clients. This decision is
immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration will be
entertained. Let copies of this resolution be attached to his personal record and circulated among the
different courts.

SO ORDERED.