|
ATTY. LEON L. ASA and
ATTY. JOSE A. OLIVEROS,
Complainants, -versus- ATTY.
PABLITO M. CASTILLO and ATTY. GINGER ANNE CASTILLO, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -x ATTY. PABLITO M.
CASTILLO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JOSE A. OLIVEROS, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x ATTY. PABLITO M.
CASTILLO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. LEON L. ASA, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x ATTY. LEON L. ASA, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. PABLITO M.
CASTILLO, Respondent.
|
A.C.
No. 6501 (CBD Case Nos. 03-1076, 03-1108, 03-1109, 03-1125) Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
|
|
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Subject of the present Decision are
four administrative cases, docketed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) as Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Case Nos. 03-1076,03-1108,03-1109,
and 03-1125.
I. CBD Case No. 03-1076
In 1996, Atty. Pablito
M. Castillo (Castillo), then an associate of the Laurel Law Offices of which Attorneys
Leon L. Asa (Asa) and Jose
A. Oliveros (Oliveros) are
partners, endorsed to the law firm a guardianship case, Special Proceeding No.
5222, “In re: Guardianship of the Minors Honeylyn,
Alexandra and Jerill Nonan,” which was pending before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 59. Castillo appeared as counsel of record for
the therein petitioner, Dr. Salvador H. Laurel, guardian ad litem of the minors Nonan who
appear to have inherited a sizeable amount of US dollars.
A misunderstanding later occurred
between Asa and Castillo as regards their sharing in
the attorney’s fees in the guardianship case.
On page 6 of a pleading entitled “Reply
to Petitioner-Guardian’s Comment/Opposition,[1]
ETC.” dated July 19, 2002 filed before Branch 59 of the Angeles RTC and signed
by Castillo’s daughter Ginger Anne Castillo (Ginger Anne) as “counsel” for
Castillo who filed a Notice Ad Cautelam, it was alleged
that, inter alia,
“Asa wants to be paid an additional $75,000.00 for
his services in providing coffee and opening doors whenever there is a
conference at the Laurel Law Offices.”[2]
Finding the above statement of
Castillo and Ginger Anne to be a brazen falsehood concocted to besmirch Asa’s reputation, Asa and Oliveros filed before IBP an administrative complaint[3]
against Castillo and Ginger Anne, for gross violation of the lawyer’s oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The case was docketed as CBD Case No. 03-1076.
In their complaint, Asa and Oliveros also charged
Castillo with machinations and deceit arising from the following alleged
incidents:
In a conference held at the Laurel
Law Offices prior to January 20, 2000 attended by Dr. Laurel, the Nonan minors’ counsel abroad Atty. Benjamin Cassiday III (Cassiday), Asa and Castillo, it was agreed that the amount to be
received by Dr. Laurel in trust for the Nonan heirs
would be deposited at the Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation (RCBC), St. Francis Square Branch, Pasig
City under Dollar Savings Account No. 8-250-00043-0. Castillo, however, proposed that the funds be
deposited instead at the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), he explaining that
he knew an employee there who could facilitate “the transaction.” Dr. Laurel rejected this proposition and instead
instructed Castillo to file the appropriate motion to have the funds deposited
at the RCBC.[4]
Without showing to Dr. Laurel the
motion he was instructed to prepare, Castillo filed the same with the Angeles trial
court. Dr. Laurel subsequently received
a copy of a March 2, 2000 RTC Order[5]
signed by the then trial Judge Eliezer R. De los Santos granting his motion and accordingly directing that
the funds to be held in trust for the Nonan children
be deposited at the Trust Department of the UCPB Head Office. Dr. Laurel, Cassiday
and Asa thus filed with the Angeles City trial court an
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration[6] of
the March 2, 2000 Angeles RTC Order in order to have the funds deposited at the
RCBC transferred to the RTC, as previously agreed upon. This motion was granted.
Still in the same complaint, Asa and Oliveros alleged that in
a “Reply to Answer”[7] dated
June 25, 2001 filed by Castillo with the RTC of Makati
City, Branch 145 in Civil Case No. 01-506, “Atty. P.M. Castillo v. United
Coconut Planters Bank, Lorenzo V. Tan and Angelica S. Hernandez,” Castillo
again committed a clear falsehood when he therein stated that:
On the other hand, retired Justice Felipe Kalalo of the Court of Appeals who personally knew the
plaintiff [Castillo] was also profuse in extolling his academic credentials and
accomplishments as a Trial lawyer as follows:
Q: Do
you know the claimant Atty. P.M. Castillo?
A: Yes
sir, because we were both active Senior Trial lawyers of the Laurel Law
Offices,[8] (Underscoring supplied),
he knowing that retired
Justice Kalalo had never been at any time a lawyer at
the Laurel Law Offices. In support of
this allegation, they appended to the complaint a certified true copy of the Service
Record[9] of
Justice Kalalo which does not show that he was ever connected
with the Laurel Law Office.
In their
Answer[10]
to the complaint, Castillo and Ginger Anne declared:
There is
nothing wrong or objectionable to the statement that Asa’s
services in the guardianship case consisted in providing coffee and opening
doors whenever there was a conference at the Laurel Law Offices, as this was in
fact the truth, the comportment being “strictly in accordance with long
cherished Filipino hospitality,” and “he [Castillo] would have done the same
with his own visitors.”[11] In any event, they claim that the assailed
factual narration was material and relevant to Castillo’s question why Asa was given the lion’s share of attorney’s fees when he
had not rendered any known material service which redounded to the benefit of
the Nonan children.
Moreover,
the Castillos declared that the deposit of the Nonan funds at the UCPB was not attended with malice or bad
faith, nor was it intended to benefit them as the funds could only be withdrawn
by Dr. Laurel who had exclusive access to all the information pertaining to the
interest and benefits accruing thereto.
As
regards the assailed June 25, 2001 “Reply to Answer” filed with the Makati RTC in Civil Case No. 01-506, the Castillos asserted that Castillo had no control nor
influence over the voluntary and spontaneous testimony of retired Justice Kalalo in his favor during the proceedings adverted to.[12]
II. CBD Case No. 03-1108
Castillo subsequently filed a complaint[13] against Oliveros
before the IBP, docketed as CBD Case No. 03-1108, for gross violation of
lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Castillo
alleged that: (1) Oliveros assisted Cassiday in embezzling US $950,000 representing the share
adjudicated to the Nonan heirs; (2) in conspiracy
with Dr. Laurel and a certain Atty. Douglas Cushnie, Oliveros resorted to forum shopping to undermine and defeat
the jurisdiction of the Philippine court in the guardianship proceedings; (3) Oliveros, along with Asa, Dr.
Laurel and Cassiday, perpetuated other acts of fraud
in the guardianship proceedings; and (4)
Oliveros, together with Asa,
deliberately and maliciously filed a groundless administrative complaint
against him and Ginger Anne.
In
his Answer[14] to the
Complaint in CBD Case No. 03-1108, Oliveros, decrying
the allegations against him as patently false, baseless and malicious, claimed
that the complaint was Castillo’s way of retaliating against him for having
joined Asa in filing the administrative complaint
against him and Ginger Anne (CBD Case No. 03-1076).
III. CBD Case No. 03-1109
Castillo
also filed an administrative complaint[15] against Asa
before the IBP, charging him with embezzlement, dishonesty, betrayal of trust,
grave abuse of confidence and violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The case
was docketed as CBD Case No. 03-1109.
Castillo
alleged that (1) Asa, Cassiday
and Dr. Laurel scandalously mismanaged the estate of the Nonan
heirs, the bulk of which they indiscriminately pocketed; (2) Asa and Oliveros filed a
groundless administrative complaint against him and Ginger Anne to compel him
to withdraw his claim for attorney’s fees against Dr. Laurel and his bid to
replace the latter as guardian of the Nonan heirs;
(3) despite an Agreement[16]
dated February 16, 2000 between him and Asa that the
latter would receive only 25% of whatever he (Castillo) would receive as
attorney’s fees, Asa secretly pocketed the amounts of
$24,500 and $160,500 from the guardianship case on April 18, 2000; (4) Asa refused to account for and turn over the amount of
$130,000 in attorney’s fees which belonged to him (Castillo); and (5) Asa embarked
on a scheme to force him into resigning as counsel for Dr. Laurel to enable
them to exercise absolute control over the guardianship case and appropriate
for themselves the attorney’s fees allocated for him.
In his
Answer to the Complaint[17]
in CBD Case No. 03-1109, Asa alleged as
follows: It was in fact Castillo who
reneged on their February 16, 2000 Agreement as the latter had earlier bluntly
told him that he changed his mind and that he would not give him (Asa) any share in the attorney’s fees he would receive from
the guardianship case, Castillo reasoning that he was the therein counsel of record
and had endorsed the case to the Laurel Law Offices. He thus reported the matter to Dr. Laurel and
informed him that he “would likewise not give Castillo’s share in the
attorney’s fees he [Asa] might receive because [Castillo]
has no word of honor.”[18]
As
regards the $24,500 that he allegedly secretly pocketed, Asa
explained that several days prior to April 18, 2000, Dr. Laurel and Atty. Cassiday fixed the attorney’s fees of both Castillo and Asa at $100,000 each, based on the amount to be paid by the
four heirs or $25,000 per heir. When the
first heir Merceditas Feliciano (Merceditas)
paid $1,150,000 on April 18, 2000, he deposited $24,500 of this amount in his
and his wife’s joint Dollar Account No. 247-702-9275 at the Philippine National
Bank (PNB), Ortigas Branch as his share in the
attorney’s fees, while he opened a new account in the name of Dr. Laurel to
which he deposited the amount of $160,500.
Asa went on to declare that Castillo received his own $25,000
plus interest amounting to $25,023.13 representing full payment of his
attorney’s fees from Merceditas, as evidenced by a
Receipt[19]
dated May 2, 2000 signed by Castillo.
Continuing,
Asa declared that of the $160,500 belonging to Dr.
Laurel, $100,000 represented partial payment for his consenting to be the
guardian ad litem of the Nonan heirs and $60,000 represented reimbursement for
expenses incurred over several years by Dr. Laurel, the total of which was
placed temporarily on April 18, 2000 in his (Asa’s)
Dollar Account No. 8-250-00047-3 in RCBC.
Dr. Laurel, however, withdrew $160,000.00 the following day from RCBC
and placed it in his own Dollar Time Deposit Account for which $500.00 was
spent for the purpose. A Certification[20] to
this effect, issued by RCBC Ortigas Business Center
Manager Dolores L. Del Valle, was appended to Asa’s
Answer.
Finally,
Asa declared that Castillo’s claim for $130,000 in
attorney’s fees is baseless and unconscionable, and that Castillo filed the
complaint merely to harass him in retaliation for the complaint he and Oliveros priorly filed against him
and Ginger Anne.
IV. CBD Case No. 03-1125
On
August 25, 2003, Asa filed yet another administrative complaint,[21] against Castillo before the IBP, for
disbarment/suspension, docketed as CBD Case No. 03-1125, charging him
with deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, immoral conduct,
violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in
light of his baseless, malicious and derogatory allegations in CBD Case No.
03-1109 which were founded on deceit and deliberate falsehood, and of promoting
a groundless, false and unlawful suit.
IBP REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION:
By
Report and Recommendation[22]
of
From the facts and evidence presented, what have been
shown by the counsels are mutual bickerings,
unjustified recriminations and offensive personalities between brother lawyers
which detract from the dignity of the legal profession and do not deserve the
attention of the Commission. The
voluminous case record contains but personal peculiarities and
idiosyncrasies hurled by the counsels against each other which constitute
highly unprofessional conduct. A great
part of man’s comfort, as well as of his success at the bar, depends upon his
relations with his professional brethren.
With them he is in daily necessary intercourse, and he must have their
respect and confidence, if he wishes to sail along in smooth waters. Hence, the parties are advised to conduct
themselves honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and try to maintain
the dignity of the legal profession.[23] (Underscoring supplied)
By Resolution[24]
of
The records of the cases
were then forwarded for final action to this Court.
Asa filed with this Court an
Castillo likewise filed with
this Court a Consolidated Omnibus Motion for Partial Reconsideration[27] dated
On
On
THIS COURT’S RULING
In his questioned “Reply to
Petitioner-Guardian’s Comment/Opposition,” Castillo’s statement reads:
x x x
Atty. Leon Asa wants to be paid an additional
$75,000.00 for his services in providing coffee and opening the doors whenever
there is a conference at the Laurel Law Offices. He also conveniently provides himself with
the Nonan expediente to
give assistance to the parties during their so-called conferences. Worse, his express reluctance to appear
before this Honorable Court was repeatedly announced by Atty. Jose Oliveros because of his so-called failing health x x x[30]
Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that 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 of the same Canon mandates that a
lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
That a member of the bar is
enjoined to observe honorable, candid and courteous dealing with other lawyers[31] and
employ respectful and restrained language is in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession.[32] It is through a scrupulous preference for
respectful language that a lawyer best demonstrates his observance or respect
due to the courts and judicial officers.[33]
In the case at bar, Castillo
and Ginger Anne’s choice of words manifestly falls short of this criterion. Their disparaging statements in the pleading
referred to above belie their proffered good intention and exceed the bounds of
civility and propriety.
Castillo’s claim that the
statement about Asa’s services is relevant and
pertinent to the claim for attorney’s fees and was, for all legal intents and
purposes, a “privileged communication”[34] deserves
short shrift. Indulging in offensive
personalities in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional
conduct subject to disciplinary action, even if the publication thereof is
privileged.[35]
x x x
this Court will not be inhibited from exercising its supervisory authority over
lawyers who misbehave or fail to live up to that standard expected of them as
members of the Bar. Indeed, the rule of
absolute privileged communication absolves beforehand the lawyer from civil and
criminal liability based on the statements made in the pleadings. But like the member of the legislature who
enjoys immunity from civil and criminal liability arising from any speech or
debate delivered in the Batasan or in any committee
thereof, but nevertheless remains subject to the disciplinary authority of the
legislature for said speech or debate, a lawyer equally remains subject to
this Court’s supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the observance
of his duty as a member of the legal profession.[36] (Underscoring supplied)
Castillo and Ginger Anne are
thus admonished to exercise
greater care and circumspection in the preparation of their pleadings and
refrain from using offensive or otherwise improper language.
In support of Asa and Oliveros’ allegation that
Castillo employed deceit and falsehood in attempting to change the depositary
bank for the funds to be held in trust by Dr. Laurel for the Nonan heirs, they presented the March 2, 2000 RTC Order
directing Dr. Laurel and his principal counsel Castillo to deposit the balance
of the proceeds of the settlement with any and all of the adjudicated heirs
with UCPB and the March 14, 2000 RTC Order directing the deposit of the
settlement proceeds with the RCBC.
A perusal of the Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration dated
Considering the present raging controversy arising
from the P50 Billion coconut levy funds, the stability of the United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB), Head Office at Makati, may be
seriously affected x x x
The Petitioner-Guardian can best protect the deposits
of the Nonan children if the proceeds of the
settlement will be deposited with a solvent and more conservative bank like the
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION (RCBC) x x x[37]
In
administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly
preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an administrative case against a
lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as the
motivation thereof.[38] In the case at bar, Asa
and Oliveros failed to present clear and preponderant
evidence to show that Castillo willfully and deliberately resorted to deceit
and falsehood in filing the Motion to have the funds deposited at UCPB.
Respecting
Castillo’s
On the other hand, retired Justice
Felipe Kalalo of the Court of Appeals who personally
knew the plaintiff, was also profuse in extolling his academic credentials and
accomplishments as a Trial lawyer, as follows:
Q: Do you know the claimant Atty. P.M. Castillo?
A: Yes sir, because we were both active Senior
Trial lawyers at the Laurel Law Offices.
Q: How could you characterize and rate the trial
competency, performance and expertise of Atty. P.M. Castillo?
A: He is highly competent, low key, aggressive and
very brilliant in the conduct of trial, as well as, in the formulation of
courtroom strategies. His pleadings are
also very well written, direct to the point, convincing, scholarly and
exhaustive. To be sure, he is one of the
popular trial lawyers of our firm (The Laurel Law Offices), not only because he
came from an exclusive school, but also because of his scholastic records at Ateneo de Manila was also impressive. That is why he was taken in by former VP
Salvador H. Laurel even before the release of the 1964 bar where he was also
No. 2 among the Ateneo bar candidates for the
year. He was No. 15 among the bar topnotchers. This is
not to mention his impressive and highly (sic) batting average of winning about
80% to 90% of his load cases and work.
He was also one of the busy lawyers of our office, until he went on
private practice and excelled as one of the more successful and respected trial
practitioners.[39] (Underscoring supplied)
To Asa, by the foregoing allegation, Castillo committed clear
falsehood for Justice Kalalo had never been a lawyer
at any time at the Laurel Law Offices.
Castillo
explained, however, that he “can only say that he has no control, nor influence
on the voluntary and spontaneous declaration and testimony of Retired Justice
Felipe Kalalo of the Court of Appeals in his favor
during the highly adversarial proceedings.”[40]
Castillo’s
explanation does not impress, however. The
records show that the above-quoted statements attributed by Castillo to Justice
Kalalo were lifted from an unsigned and unsubscribed
affidavit entitled “Question and Answer Format in Lieu of Direct Testimony of
Justice Felipe Kalalo”[41]
dated
Canon
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the courts.
Rule 10.01 of said Canon specifically commands that a member of the bar
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 of the same Canon provides that a member
of the bar shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper
or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
And
Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court directs that a lawyer must employ
such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by any artifice or false statement of
fact or law.[43]
Complete
candor or honesty is thus expected from lawyers, particularly when they appear
and plead before the courts.[44] They have an obligation to the court as well
as to the opposing party to make only truthful statements in their pleadings.[45] The burden cast on the judiciary would be
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by
counsel. The time that will have to be
devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily
be imagined.[46]
In
light of the above findings reflecting Castillo’s administrative culpability, his
charge against Asa and Oliveros
of filing groundless disbarment cases against him and Ginger Anne necessarily
fails.
As
regards Castillo’s claim that Asa secretly pocketed $24,500
and $160,500, the undated certification issued by RCBC Branch Operation Head
Dolores del Valle reading:
This is to certify that on
and Dr. Laurel Partial
Inventory, Account and Report of Guardian[48]
dated
3. On
4. Pursuant to the above-stated Orders
of this Honorable Court, the Guardian Ad Litem and
Atty. Benjamin Cassiday III disbursed the following
amounts for the purposes indicated:
A. ATTORNEY’S FEES & OTHER
NECESSARY LEGAL EXPENSES:
x x x x
(7) Partial payment of the fee of
Salvador H. Laurel for consenting to be the guardian ad litem
of the Nonan children and accepting all
responsibilities attached to said position ……….US$100,000.00
(8) Reimbursement to Salvador H.
Laurel for expenses incurred during the last six (6) years for airfare, car
rentals, overseas calls, and representation and other incidental expenses while
in the various states in the United States in order to pursue the claim of the Nonan children against the Hillblom
estate ……….US$60,000.00
x x x x[49] (Underscoring supplied),
validate Asa’s
explanation that the amount of $160,500 belonged to Dr. Laurel but was merely
temporarily placed in his (Asa’s) account.
The
Partial Inventory, Account and Report of Guardian shows that $12,500 was received
by Asa as attorney’s fees for assisting Dr. Laurel
and Castillo from 1996 to 2000.[50] Confirming such disbursement is a Receipt[51]
dated
RECEIVED from Atty. Leon L. Asa
the sum of Twelve thousand five hundred US Dollars US$12,500.00 as fifty
percent (50%) share of LLO [Laurel Law Offices] in attorney’s fees of US$25,000
of Atty. Asa in SP Proc. 5222 of RTC Angeles City,
Br. 59.
Cash……….US$12,500-
By: Sgd.
Treasurer/Cashier
On Asa’s alleged unjust refusal to turn over Castillo’s
attorney’s fees: It appears that Asa and Castillo each received $25,000 as attorney’s fees but
pursuant to their February 2000 Agreement, the aggregate amount of $50,000
would be divided between them, and Castillo would receive 75% thereof or
$37,500, while Asa would receive 25% or $12,500. The records show that Asa
kept only $12,500 for himself, he having remitted, as reflected above, the
remaining $12,500 to the Laurel Law Offices.
Dr.
Laurel eventually gave Castillo $10,000 out of the $12,500 which Asa remitted to the Laurel Law Offices, as reflected in the
Partial Inventory, Account and Report of Guardian.[53]
Respecting
Castillo’s claim that, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Asa and Oliveros “embarked
on another sinister strategy to spite, insult and provoke him to ostracize him
and make him feel unwanted to continue as [Dr. Laurel’s] lawyer in furtherance
of their conspiracy to force him into resignation for them to replace him and
have absolute control over the guardianship case, the funds of the estate and
the attorney’s fees,” the same is unsubstantiated, hence, deserves no further
consideration.
As
to Castillo’s charge against Asa and Oliveros of embezzlement due to alleged scandalous
mismanagement of the estate of the Nonan heirs,
premised on the
Finally,
on Castillo’s Omnibus Motion to Appoint a Commissioner, the matters raised
therein[55] being
entirely inappropriate, to say the least, for consideration in these
administrative proceedings, the same is denied.
A
final word. The spectacle of members of
the bar being engaged in bickering and recrimination is far from edifying. Mutual bickerings
and unjustified recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the
dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this
Court.[56] Personal colloquies between counsels which
promote unseemly wrangling should thus be carefully avoided.[57]
It
appears that Castillo had previously been suspended for Six (6) Months by this
Court in CBD Case No. 176, Bongalonta v.
Castillo,[58]
for committing falsehood in violation of his lawyer’s oath and of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He was then
warned that commission of the same or similar offense in the future would call
for the imposition of a more severe penalty. This Court thus imposes upon him a penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of One (1) year.
WHEREFORE,
the administrative
cases filed against Atty. Leon L. Asa and Atty. Jose
A. Oliveros are DISMISSED.
Atty.
Ginger Anne Castillo is found GUILTY of breach of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby admonished to refrain from using offensive
and improper language in her pleadings.
Atty.
Pablito M. Castillo is likewise found GUILTY of
breach of Canons 8, as well as Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of One (1) Year, effective upon receipt of this Decision.
Let
copies of this Decision be entered in the respective personal records of Atty.
Ginger Anne Castillo and of Atty. Pablito M. Castillo
in the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let
copies too be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 16-28.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] Ricafort
v. Bansil, A.C. No. 6298,
[32] Buenaseda
v. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719,
[33] Lubiano
v. Gordolla, A.C. No. 2343,
[34] Rollo, p. 360.
[35] Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010, 1016 (1961).
[36] Supra note 33 at 462-463 (citations omitted).
[37] Rollo, pp. 375-376.
[38] Rudecon
Management Corporation v. Camacho, A.C. No. 6403,
[39] Rollo, p. 128.
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43] Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625,
[44] Silva Vda. de Fajardo v. Bugaring, A.C. No.
5113,
[45] Tolentino v. Judge Cabral, 385 Phil. 631, 652 (2000).
[46] Muñoz v. People, 152 Phil. 570, 575-576 (1973).
[47] Rollo, p. 527.
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
R E C E I P T
US$12,500.00
Received from Dr. Salvador H. Laurel, Guardian Ad Litem for the Nonan Heirs, and Atty. Benjamin Cassiday III, Principal Foreign Legal Counsel for the said Guardian, the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS (US$12,500.00) as full payment of my attorney’s fees corresponding to the settlement agreement entered into with one of the four heirs, Mercedita Feliciano through her Guardian Ad Litem Milagros Feliciano, relative to Special Proceedings No. 5222 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 59 entitled “In Re: Guardianship of the Minors Honelyn, Alexandra and Jeril, all surnamed Nonan, Salvador H. Laurel, Petitioner.”
Sgd.
Partner and Assisting Counsel
to
the
[52] Rollo, p. 543.
[53]
[54]
[55] (1) to investigate and determine the liability of Angeles City RTC judges, prosecutors and lawyers who facilitated the escape of Benjamin Cassiday III from the Philippines, despite the existence of a hold departure order and the pendency of the embezzlement case against him involving the estate funds of $950,000; (2) to rein and keep in tow the different RTC judges of Angeles City to observe strict fidelity to their oath and to attend with dispatch the welfare and well being of the Nonan children by appointing a respectable and credible guardian and in disposing the various long pending incidents of the guardianship case; (3) to rescue the Nonan children who have no house and lot of their own despite their enormous wealth and whose health and welfare are also being neglected and taken for granted by the newly appointed guardian and the guardianship court, (4) to compel the substitution of the heirs of the late guardian to guarantee the restitution of the missing estate funds and (5) to compel the new guardian to post a bond and repatriate expeditiously the remaining estate funds of $1,541,122.57 to the Philippines to enable the guardianship court to control and exercise jurisdiction over the same.
[56] Atty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 100, 106 (2003) (citations omitted), People v. Atty. Sesbreno, 215 Phil. 411, 418 (1984) (citation omitted), Narido v. Atty. Linsangan, 157 Phil. 87, 91 (1974).
[57] Canon 17, Canons of Professional Ethics.
[58] 310 Phil. 320 (1995).