Scribd
Upload
145 views2 pages

Tolentino Versus So and Ancheta

1) Flordeliza was a defendant in a civil case involving land ownership. The RTC ruled against her and she appealed to the CA with Atty. Henry So representing her. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision but Atty. So did not inform Flordeliza. 2) Flordeliza then hired Atty. Ancheta who promised to file a motion to reopen the case and asked for P200,000, supposedly to bribe CA justices. No motion was filed. 3) The CBD found Atty. Ancheta guilty of defrauding Flordeliza and disbarred him. Atty. So was not found guilty of negligence for not informing Flordeliza as his actions did rise to the

Uploaded by

Jaycebel Dungog Rulona
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
145 views2 pages

Tolentino Versus So and Ancheta

1) Flordeliza was a defendant in a civil case involving land ownership. The RTC ruled against her and she appealed to the CA with Atty. Henry So representing her. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision but Atty. So did not inform Flordeliza. 2) Flordeliza then hired Atty. Ancheta who promised to file a motion to reopen the case and asked for P200,000, supposedly to bribe CA justices. No motion was filed. 3) The CBD found Atty. Ancheta guilty of defrauding Flordeliza and disbarred him. Atty. So was not found guilty of negligence for not informing Flordeliza as his actions did rise to the

Uploaded by

Jaycebel Dungog Rulona
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GAVINO & FLORDELIZA TOLENTINO vs. ATTY. HENRY SO & ATTY.

FERDINAN
D ANCHETA
A.C. No. 6387, July 19, 2016, 797 SCRA 106

FACTS: Flordeliza was a defendant in a civil case before the RTC inv
olving recovery of possession of a parcel of land, which was rendered
against Flordeliza ordering her to vacate the land.

The case was appealed to the CA. While the appeal is pending, Fl
ordeliza’s counsel was replaced by Atty. Henry So.

Spouses Flordeliza learned that the CA affirmed the RTC decision. A


tty. Henry So did not inform them nor take the necessary action to
elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Thus, they were compelled to take the services of Atty. Ancheta. T


he latter promised them that there was still a remedy that he will fil
e a motion to reopen appeal case and asked P200,000 to bribe the
CA justices.

Spouses Flordeliza learned that no such motion was filed by Atty.


Ancheta and the CA decision had been final and executory.

Spouses Flordeliza sought to recover the money from Atty. Ancheta b


ut to no avail. On the other hand, Atty. Henry So answered explaining
that he had departed from the law office while the case is pendin
g at CA and moved to Western Samar.

Atty. Ancheta failed to follow order of the Commission on Bar Discipl


ine (CBD) requiring his attendance and presence in the hearing. He d
id not file any pleading.

ISSUES
1) Whether Atty. Henry So is guilty of negligence for failure to in
form the spouses of the status of the case.

2) Whether Atty. Ancheta defrauded the spouses.

RULINGS
1) NO, Atty. Henry So is not guilty of negligence.

The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow


only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence of Atty. Henry
So’s misconduct affecting her standing and moral character as an officer
of the Court and member of the bar.

Atty. Henry So’s omission is not of such gravity that would warran
t his disbarment or suspension.

2) YES. Atty. Ancheta is guilty of defrauding the spouses.

Any member of the bar who fails to live up to the standards of


integrity and morality exposes himself to administrative liability.

Atty. Ancheta’s act of asking for money from the spouses Flordeliza,
to be used as bribe for the justices of the CA, is clearly an
act which shows his lack of integrity in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He is disbarred.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy