AC 9860 and AC9149 Case Digest Iris Valeriano 1-B-1

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
I. CASE DIGESTS
AC 9860: Heirs of Antonio vs. Atty Joseph Ador Ramos 1
AC 9149: Julian Penilla vs. Atty Quintin Alcid 2
II. OTHER CASES (ISSUES ONLY)
AC 5834: Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Luna B. Avance 3
AC 8620: Jessie R. De Leon vs. Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo 3
AC 7907: Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda vs. Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda 3

















































AC 9860 and AC9149 Case Digest Iris Valeriano 1-B-1

1




A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013
JOSEPHINE L. OROLA, MYRNA L. OROLA, MANUEL L. OROLA, MARY
ANGELYN OROLA-BELARGA, MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP, AND KAREN
OROLA, (Heirs of Antonio) Complainants, v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J .:

The Facts

Atty Joseph Ador Ramos was charged for his violation of (a) Rule 15.03 of the Code, as
he undertook to represent conflicting interests in the subject case; and (b) Section 20(e), Rule
138 of the Rules, as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his clients, the
Heirs of Antonio. The Antonio heirs first filed a hearing with the IBP. IBP found the respondent
guilty though there was no violation of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The IBP
imposed against respondent the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law.


The Issue Before the Court
Is the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Rules of Court?

The Courts Ruling

1. The Court concurs with the IBPs finding that respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code, but
reduced the recommended period of suspension to three (3) months to be more appropriate
taking into consideration the following factors:
a. Respondent is a first time offender;
b. It is undisputed that respondent merely accommodated Maricars request out of gratis to
temporarily represent her only during the June 16 and July 14, 2006 hearings due to her
lawyers unavailability;
c. It is likewise undisputed that respondent had no knowledge that the late Antonio had any
other heirs aside from Maricar whose consent he actually acquired (albeit shortly after his
first appearance as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio), hence, it can be said that he acted
in good faith; and,
d. Complainants admit that respondent did not acquire confidential information from the
Heirs of Antonio nor did he use against them any knowledge obtained in the course of his
previous employment, hence, the said heirs were not in any manner prejudiced by his
subsequent engagement with Emilio.
2. The Court also served the ruling as a warning to the respondent and that the next case would
be dealt more severely.













AC 9860 and AC9149 Case Digest Iris Valeriano 1-B-1

2

FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 9149, September 04, 2013
JULIAN PENILLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
FACTS:

The respondent was complainants counsel for the case of breach of contract with the
Garin spouses. He filed a criminal case, overcharged him with attorneys fees and filing fee, and
imposed that the Asst. City Prosecutor Jose C. Fortuno would be more in favor of the
complainants case if they would give liquor to the said judge. The case was rendered
unsuccessful. After the hearing, the respondent asked for more fees, and reasoned him with more
filing of litigations. He suggested that they should file a civil case and to have the complainant
follow up about it in his office. Complainant asserts having made numerous and unsuccessful
attempts to follow-up the status of the case and meet with respondent at his office. The
complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial
Court and Regional Trial Court (RTC) and learned that the respondent has been lying to him
about the legal fees. The complainant filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) the instant administrative case praying that
respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct for violating the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and for appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed. IBP-
CBD recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six months for
negligence within the meaning of Canon 18 and transgression of Rule 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, The IBP-CBD decided that the respondents violation of Canon
18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his negligence, Atty. Quintin P.
Alcid, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. On April 24,
2009, respondent sought reconsideration and asked that the penalty of suspension be reduced to
warning or reprimand. After three days, or on April 27, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to
Admit Amended Motion for Reconsideration Upon Leave of Office. The IBP Board of
Governors denied respondents Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Respondent filed a
second Motion for Reconsideration

which was no longer acted upon. .According to the IBP, the
respondent committed professional negligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, with a modification that we also find respondent guilty of violating
Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and the Lawyers Oath.

ISSUE:
Is Atty Quintin P. Alcid Jr. Guilty of gross misconduct?

RULING:
1. The respondent, Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. was found GUILTY of gross misconduct for
violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as the Lawyers Oath.
2. The Court hereby imposed upon respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the
practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS to commence immediately upon
receipt of this Decision.
3. Respondent is further ADMONISHED to be more circumspect and diligent in handling
the cases of his clients, and
4. STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.

AC 9860 and AC9149 Case Digest Iris Valeriano 1-B-1

3

Due to the fact that I lacked 3 cases against attorneys on the month of September 2013, I
moved my other readings to February and January 2011 which are as follow:
CASE NUMBER
DATE
CASE ISSUE
A.C. No. 5834.
February 22, 2011
Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Luna B.
Avance

Can the respondent be
disbarred in the notion of
being guilty of gross
misconduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders
of a superior court?
A.C. No. 8620
January 12, 2011
Jessie R. De Leon vs. Atty. Eduardo G.
Castelo,
Did the respondent commit
any falsehood or falsification
in his pleadings in Civil Case
No. 4674MN that would make
him liable to the lawyers oath
and Canon 1 and 10 of the
Code of Professional
Responsibility?
A.C. No. 7907
December 15, 2010
Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda
vs. Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda
Did the respondent neglect his
duties as a lawyer to his
clients?