Re: 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines fundamental assumption was that officers, delegates and

officers, delegates and governors would be

BAR Matter No. 491. October 6, 1989 | Canon 1. chosen on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve.”
FACTS:

In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS
(hereafter „IBP‰) held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention
Center (or PICC). The newly-elected officers were set to take their oath of office on At the formal investigation which was conducted by the investigating committee, the
July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court en banc. However, disturbed by the following violations were established:
widespread reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had (1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for
witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in president, executive vice-president, the officers of the House of Delegates
the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and and Board of Governors.
overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of  Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the
president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their
Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious intervention written endorsements. He personally hand-carried nomination
of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of forms and requested the chapter presidents and delegates to fill up
the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities, the Supreme Court en banc, and sign the forms to formalize their commitment to his nomination
exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the for IBP President.
oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.  Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel
based on the commitments he had obtained
What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported electioneering (2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign
and extravagance that characterized the campaign conducted by the three (3) Formation of tickets and single slates
candidates for president of the IBP. (4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates.
(5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to delegates
I. Media account of the election campaign – the IBP elections were highly  Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three
criticized by some media reports and columns. They were unanimously critical of suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his headquarters
the “vote-buying and pressure tactics” allegedly employed in the campaign by the  The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at the
three principal candidates: Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo. Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato
Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of which were suites
Atty. Drilon:  Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered into
 allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-flung IBP chapters on the a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1)
pretext of distributing Bigay Puso donations seventh-floor room
 Jurado’s informants alleged that there was rampant vote-buying by some (6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon
members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon’s fraternity), (7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any member
as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA (Angara, Concepcion, Cruz, (8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of
Regala and Abello Law Office) where Mrs. Drilon is employed, legal size sheet of paper
 that government positions were promised to others by the office of the (9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than
Labor Secretary those authorized by the officer presiding at the election
 the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were  Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign
reportedly „wined and dined continuously, womened, and subjected to materials on the convention floor
endless haggling over the price of their votes x x x which allegedly (10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or
ranged from P15,000 to P20,000, and, on the day of the election, some against a candidate
twelve to twenty votes which were believed crucial, appreciated to
P50,000 HELD:
It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the 1987
II. The court’s decision to investigate - In that resolution the Court “call[ed] to Constitution (Sec. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of
mind that a basic postulate of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), heavily seven (7) members among whom is „a representative of the Integrated Bar, tasked to
stressed at the time of its organization and commencement of existence, is that participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the
the IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor judiciary, may be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much
campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the interest among the lawyers. The much coveted “power” erroneously perceived to be
House of Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter. The inherent in that office might have caused the corruption of the IBP elections.
Candidates and many of the participants in the election not only violated the By-Laws
of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession imposed on all lawyers.·The
candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the ByLaws
of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession imposes on all lawyers, as a
corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty
to “promote respect for law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system (Rule 1.02,
Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded
when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be minions of the law, engage in
unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for
their observance.

the Court hereby ORDERS:

(1) The IBP elections held on June 3, 1989 should be as they are hereby
annulled.
(2) The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of
Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar
Matter No. 287) of the following national officers: the officers of the House of
Delegates; the IBP president; and the executive vice-president
Repealed and modify the by laws of the
 Igoy vs. Soriano On January 8, 2001, Atty. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under R.A.
A.M. No. 2001-9-SC. October 11, 2001 1616, without specifying its effectivity date. The Office of Administrative Services, to
PETITIONER: DOROTEO IGOY which this case was referred for evaluation, issued a Memorandum on May 30, 2001,
recommending respondent’s dismissal from the service effective immediately, with
RESPONDENT: ATTY. GILBERT SORIANO, Court Attorney VI, Office of the Clerk forfeiture of all retirement benefits to which he may be entitled.
of Court, First Division
Respondent’s offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty
DOCTRINE/LAW: may be imposed on him. However, the mere expedient of resigning from the service
will not
FACTS: extricate him from the consequences of his acts

Sometime in July 1999, a friend introduced complainant to a certain “Justice” of the HELD:
Supreme Court. He narrated to the said Justice the history of their case. In turn, the Respondent, who is himself a lawyer, should have avoided all the circumstances in
said Justice asked for and received from him the sum of P20,000.00. However, the which he might be accused of using his office in the guise of “helping others” for this
said Justice reminded complainant that he could offer no help while the case was taints the integrity of the Court.
pending before the Court of Appeals.
The denial of the respondent of the receipt of initial payment of P20,000.00 cannot
In February 2000, they received an unfavorable decision from the Court of Appeals. simply overcome the positive assertions of the complainant. If no such initial payment
Thus, complainant immediately visited the said Justice at his office in the Supreme took place, Atty. Soriano would not have claimed the subsequent payment through
Court to inform him of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Justice offered to the Aboitiz Express.
prepare the petition for review to be filed with the Supreme Court. Complainant
subsequently met the said Justice at the Max’s Restaurant, where the latter turned The Court adopts the foregoing findings and recommendation of the OAS. Time and
over the prepared petition for review. In consideration therefor, the Justice asked for again, this Tribunal has emphasized that [t]he conduct or behavior of all officials and
an additional P20,000.00. Since complainant did not have that amount of money with employees of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding
him at that time, he undertook to send the same by courier as soon as he arrives in judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
Cebu. Complainant asked for the said Justice’s complete name and address, which responsibility.
he readily gave as: Atty. Gilbert Soriano, 22 Melon Street, Gatchalian Subdivision,
Phase 3- 13, Las Piñas City. Indeed, Canon 6, Rule 6.02, of the Code of Professional Responsibility states in no
uncertain terms that·
Complainant was surprised to learn that on May 31, 2000, this Court denied the
Petition for Review. Accordingly, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which this Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
Court denied with finality on July 31, 2000. Together with his letter, complainant promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
submitted the following documents:
Photocopy of the Petition for Review allegedly prepared by the “Justice”
Respondent should be reminded in this regard that the nature and responsibilities of
(1) Shipper’s Copy of Prepaid Consignment Note No. EO993783C dated May 2,
2000, addressed to one Atty. Gilbert Soriano of 22 Melon St., Gatchalian public officers enshrined in the Constitution, and oft-repeated in our case law, are not
mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as working
Subdivision, Phase 3-13, Las Piñas City, with telephone numbers 826-1018,
containing cash in the amount of P20,000.00, and sent by one Doroteo Igoy standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.
of Mactan, Lapu-lapu City, with telephone
(2) numbers 495-8-49; Respondent’s acts seriously undermined the trust and confidence of the public in the
entire judicial system. What makes his infraction worse is the fact that he is not a
(3) Letter dated May 5, 2000 of one Atty. Gilbert F. Soriano, addressed to
Aboitiz Express, authorizing his daughter, Christine Soriano, or his son, Alvin mere court employee, but a senior attorney employed in the Highest Court of the
Land.
A. Soriano, to receive Parcel No. EO993783C on his behalf;
(4) Note dated May 5, 2000, evidencing receipt by one Alvin Soriano of the
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Gilbert Soriano is hereby DISMISSED from the
package on that date at 11:30 o’clock in the morning
service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits and with prejudice to
reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including
In his comment dated November 6, 2000, Atty. Gilbert Soriano denied that he was the
“Justice’ alluded to. Respondent denied giving complainant any assistance other than government-owned or controlled corporations. This dismissal shall be immediately
executory.
checking the formal requirements of the petition for review. Respondent likewise
denied having demanded for an additional P20,000.00, countering that complainant
merely promised him a token gift for the little help that he extended, without mention
of any amount.
 (Rule 12.03). Moreover, they should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes (Rule 12.04).
Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat
G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000
Cordova vs. Labayen
FACTS: A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033. October 10, 1995
Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao·all surnamed Quilat-Quilat·filed
an action for recovery of a parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro, Jr., FACTS:
Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean·all surnamed Edrial·and Susan Edrial For consideration by the Court is the matter of the order we issued on November 23,
Valenzuela. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6315 and raffled to Branch 39 1994, requiring Atty. Salvador T. Sabio, counsel for herein complainants, to show
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City. cause and explain why he should not be administratively dealt with for violation of
Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The petioner’s counsel has asked for several postponements as he would attend
several other meetings or due to non-availability of the witnesess. They were given a The present incident is an offshoot of an administrative complaint filed by
stern warning due to the delays done. The case was submitted for decision for 4 complainants Maribeth and Christopher Cordova, through their aforesaid counsel,
times. Atty. Sabio, against herein respondents for disbarment, dismissal from office and
disqualification to hold public office with forfeiture of employment benefits for their
Counsel for petitioners alleges that the addresses of his clients on file in his law firm involvement in Civil Case No. 7092 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod
were incorrect; hence, the notices and other forms of communication he had sent to City. The administrative complaint, however, was dismissed by this Court on the basis
them were not received. He allegedly discovered this fact only after he had filed his of a Memorandum Report dated October 17, 1994 submitted by Deputy Court
withdrawal as their counsel. He also argues that the denial of the Motion to Reopen Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, who likewise recommended that Atty. Sabio be
Trial was “plainly capricious and oppressive” because private respondents were required to explain why he should not be administratively dealt with for violation of
equally guilty of delay and procrastination. Finally, he maintains that allowing Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 on the ground that:
petitioners to present their remaining evidence would be „in the interest of substantial
due process and humane justice. Their charge that Atty. Salvador T. Sabio ‘clearly instigated’ the filing of this complaint
is also not totally baseless. In her comment, Judge Moscardon stated that x x x the
HELD: original counsel on record unquestionably accepted the Decision of the appellate RTC
court (sic). On the other hand, the petitioners now, as well as their present counsel
Counsel’s excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The CA ruled that petitioners
who are not fully conversant (with) the circumstances surrounding the matter, now
were given more than enough time to complete their presentation of evidence. attempt to mislead the High Court x x x.’ Also worth mentioning were the allegations
Respondents rested their case as early as September 1992. Petitioner’s lawyer, at his that (1) the respondent sheriffs were criminally charged for robbery, grave threats and
own request, was allowed to start presenting evidence only on April 12, 1993. From malicious mischief; (2) that the plaintiffs reoccupied the premises Rule 1.03 (A lawyer
that day until April 26, 1996 or for a period of three years, counsel presented only two shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
witnesses. The trial judge was in fact liberal in granting petitioners’ Motions for any man’s cause)”
Postponement. But enough was enough; when they attempted to delay the trial some
more, the trial judge finally and correctly refused to go along.

The Court frowns on lawyers’ practice of repeatedly seeking extensions of time to file
pleadings and thereafter simply letting the period lapse without submitting any
pleading or even any explanation or manifestation of their failure.

Counsel for petitioners further avers that he had difficulty in presenting Atty. Roque
Bonganciso because of the latter’s prior commitments which conflicted with the
scheduled trial dates. The last witness was Mauro Edrial, Jr., but counsel had the
wrong address on file. He should just have adjusted the order of presentation of
witnesses and called Edrial, Jr. later. Such move could have prevented the
postponement. Besides, finding an available date in his calendar would not have
taken Atty. Bonganciso three years.

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers, after obtaining

extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, shall not let the period
lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so