Tag: court orders

Upholding Legal Ethics: Attorney’s Suspension for Disobeying Court Orders and Illegal Notarization

In Dimayuga v. Rubia, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the disciplinary action against Atty. Vivian G. Rubia for gross misconduct, including willful disobedience of court orders and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found Rubia guilty of failing to comply with multiple orders to submit a comment on the complaint against her, and for notarizing a deed of sale for a property that was legally prohibited from being sold under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. The Court suspended Atty. Rubia from the practice of law for three years, revoked her notarial commission, and disqualified her from being commissioned as a notary public for three years, emphasizing the importance of upholding the law and respecting court orders.

When Silence Speaks Volumes: An Attorney’s Disregard for Legal and Ethical Duties

This case arose from a complaint filed by Julieta Dimayuga against Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, citing gross negligence, misrepresentation, and violation of the lawyer’s oath. The core of the dispute involved two primary issues: first, alleged delays and potential misappropriation of funds related to the transfer of property inherited by Dimayuga’s family, and second, the preparation and notarization of a deed of sale for a property still under a ten-year prohibition from transfer as mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

The administrative proceedings initiated against Atty. Rubia took a troubling turn when she repeatedly failed to respond to the Court’s orders. Despite multiple resolutions from the Supreme Court directing her to comment on the allegations, and even after being fined for non-compliance, Atty. Rubia remained silent. Her eventual explanation cited trauma, stress, and life-threatening situations, but the Court deemed these insufficient, especially since she managed to submit pleadings explaining her inaction but not the required comment. This persistent failure to respond ultimately led the Court to act on the complaint without her input, marking a significant point in the evaluation of her conduct.

The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of Atty. Rubia’s defiance, stating that her actions constituted a deliberate disregard for the lawful orders of the Court. The Court quoted Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, underscoring that failure to comply with court directives amounts to gross misconduct and insubordination. Such behavior, the Court noted, is not only detrimental to her case but also a separate ground for suspension or disbarment, as stipulated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. – A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. x x x.

Turning to the substance of the complaint, the Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of delay and misappropriation of funds. The complainant’s claim of providing P150,000 to Atty. Rubia for fees and taxes lacked supporting documentation, leading the Court to refrain from making a ruling based on mere conjecture.

However, the Court found merit in the allegation concerning the illegal sale of land. The evidence showed that Atty. Rubia prepared and notarized a deed of sale for a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. CARP-03000, which originated from Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00394433. This title contained an explicit restriction that the land could not be sold, transferred, or conveyed within ten years, except through hereditary succession or to the government. The sale occurred within this prohibited period, rendering it illegal under R.A. No. 6657.

The Court highlighted the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, referencing Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws. Rule 15.07 further mandates lawyers to advise their clients to comply with the law. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that lawyers must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects scrupulous observance of the law and ethics. By facilitating the sale of the property, Atty. Rubia failed to meet these standards.

Moreover, the Court addressed the implications of Atty. Rubia’s role as a notary public in the illegal transaction. The act of notarization lends legal weight to a document, certifying its authenticity and validity. In this case, however, Atty. Rubia’s notarization of the deed of sale gave a false impression of legality to a transaction that was, in fact, prohibited by law. The Court quoted Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Pascua to underscore the duties of a notary public:

[W]hile respondent’s duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation. Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in fact proscribes notaries public from performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the herein document of sale, to wit:

SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. – A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:

(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;

The Court further stressed the significance of notarization, indicating that it is not merely a routine act but one invested with substantial public interest, requiring that only qualified individuals are commissioned to perform it. The Court acknowledged Atty. Rubia’s prior administrative sanctions and reiterated its warning that future infractions would be dealt with more severely. Despite this, the Court also considered that disbarment should not be imposed if a lesser punishment would suffice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Rubia should be disciplined for failing to comply with court orders and for notarizing a deed of sale that violated the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. This involved assessing her ethical and legal responsibilities as an attorney and notary public.
What was the basis for the suspension of Atty. Rubia?	Atty. Rubia was suspended for her willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders to submit a comment and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing an illegal deed of sale. These actions demonstrated a disregard for legal ethics and court authority.
Why was the notarization of the deed of sale considered a violation?	The notarization was a violation because the deed of sale involved a property that was legally prohibited from being sold, transferred, or conveyed under Republic Act No. 6657 within a specific period. Atty. Rubia, as a lawyer, should have been aware of this restriction.
What is the significance of the Code of Professional Responsibility in this case?	The Code of Professional Responsibility sets the ethical standards for lawyers in the Philippines. Atty. Rubia violated Canon 1 and Rule 15.07, which require lawyers to uphold the law and advise clients to comply with it, thus guiding the Court’s decision.
What is the role of a notary public, and how did Atty. Rubia fail in that role?	A notary public is responsible for verifying the identity of signatories and ensuring the voluntariness of their declarations. Atty. Rubia failed in her role by notarizing a document that facilitated an illegal transaction, giving it a false sense of legitimacy.
What previous disciplinary actions had been taken against Atty. Rubia?	Atty. Rubia had previously been sanctioned for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon I and Rule 18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These prior sanctions were considered in determining the appropriate penalty in this case.
What is the legal basis for suspending or disbarring an attorney in the Philippines?	Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the legal basis for suspending or disbarring an attorney. It allows for such actions in cases of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.
What factors did the Supreme Court consider when determining the penalty?	The Court considered Atty. Rubia’s repeated failure to comply with court orders, her violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, her previous disciplinary actions, and the principle that disbarment should not be imposed if a lesser punishment would suffice.

The Supreme Court’s decision to suspend Atty. Vivian G. Rubia underscores the importance of adherence to legal ethics and respect for court orders within the legal profession. The ruling serves as a reminder to attorneys of their duty to uphold the law, advise clients accordingly, and maintain the integrity of legal processes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JULIETA DIMAYUGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018

July 3, 2018

Upholding Court Authority: Attorney’s Disobedience Leads to Suspension

The Supreme Court has affirmed that lawyers who repeatedly disregard orders from the Court of Appeals face disciplinary action, including suspension from legal practice. This ruling reinforces the principle that attorneys, as officers of the court, have a duty to respect and abide by judicial directives. Failure to comply with court orders not only undermines the authority of the judiciary but also obstructs the efficient administration of justice. The Court emphasized that willful disobedience cannot be tolerated, ensuring accountability within the legal profession and safeguarding the integrity of the legal system.

Ignoring the Summons: When a Lawyer’s Disregard Leads to Legal Trouble

This case revolves around Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria’s repeated failure to comply with resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals (CA). The dispute originated from a civil action involving spouses Bayani and Myrna M. Partoza against Lilia B. Montano and Amelia T. Solomon, concerning the nullity of a real estate mortgage. After the Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, an appeal was filed, leading to CA G.R. CV No. 96282. Throughout the appellate proceedings, the CA issued several directives to Atty. Santamaria, including requests for a formal entry of appearance and compliance with rules regarding substitution of counsel. These directives, however, were repeatedly ignored, prompting the CA to initiate disciplinary measures.

The heart of the matter lies in Atty. Santamaria’s blatant disregard for the CA’s authority. Despite multiple notices and resolutions, he failed to submit required documents or offer a satisfactory explanation for his non-compliance. This pattern of behavior prompted the CA to cite him for contempt and eventually refer the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP’s investigation led to a recommendation for suspension, highlighting the severity of Atty. Santamaria’s misconduct and the importance of upholding respect for the judiciary. This case underscores the ethical obligations of lawyers and the consequences of neglecting their duty to the court.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the crucial role lawyers play in the administration of justice. As stated in Salabao v. Villaruel, Jr., “While it is true that lawyers owe ‘entire devotion’ to the cause of their clients, it cannot be emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is not to the client but to the administration or justice.” This principle is enshrined in Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that “[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.” Any act that obstructs or impedes justice constitutes misconduct and warrants disciplinary action.

Atty. Santamaria’s failure to comply with the CA’s resolutions demonstrates a clear violation of his ethical duties. His actions not only disrupted the appellate proceedings but also undermined the authority of the court. The Court highlighted that resolutions issued by the CA are not mere requests but binding directives that must be followed. By repeatedly ignoring these directives, Atty. Santamaria displayed a lack of respect for the judiciary and its processes. This behavior is unacceptable for a member of the legal profession, who is expected to uphold the dignity and integrity of the court.

Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that it is an attorney’s duty “[t]o observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.” Furthermore, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Canon 11 further provides that a “lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.” Atty. Santamaria’s conduct directly contravened these provisions, warranting disciplinary action to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

The consequences of willful disobedience are clearly outlined in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which states:

SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority [to do so]. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

In Anudon v. Cefra, the Supreme Court reiterated that a lawyer’s refusal to comply with court orders demonstrates disrespect towards the judiciary and warrants disciplinary action. Similarly, in Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, the Court emphasized that such obstinate behavior not only reveals a flaw in character but also undermines the integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to uphold the authority of the court and adhere to its directives, and failure to do so can result in severe penalties.

The penalty imposed on Atty. Santamaria—a six-month suspension from the practice of law—reflects the seriousness of his misconduct. While the Court has previously imposed harsher penalties for similar offenses, the circumstances of this case warranted a more moderate sanction. The suspension serves as a clear message that willful disobedience will not be tolerated and that lawyers must uphold their ethical obligations to the court. This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining respect for the judiciary and ensuring the efficient administration of justice. It also protects the public by ensuring that lawyers who disregard court orders are held accountable for their actions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria should be disciplined for repeatedly failing to comply with resolutions from the Court of Appeals. The Court addressed his willful disobedience of lawful court orders.
What did the Court of Appeals order Atty. Santamaria to do?	The CA directed Atty. Santamaria to submit a formal entry of appearance, comply with requirements for valid substitution of counsel, and explain why the Appellant’s Brief should not be expunged. These orders were related to procedural deficiencies in handling the appeal.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that Atty. Santamaria be suspended from the practice of law for six months. This was based on his repeated failure to comply with the CA’s directives, showing contempt for legal proceedings.
What rule did Atty. Santamaria violate?	Atty. Santamaria violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the suspension or disbarment of an attorney for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. He also violated Canons 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s recommendation and suspended Atty. Santamaria from the practice of law for six months. The Court emphasized the importance of lawyers respecting and obeying court orders to maintain the integrity of the justice system.
Why is it important for lawyers to obey court orders?	Obedience to court orders is crucial for maintaining the integrity and authority of the judiciary. Lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty to respect and comply with judicial directives to ensure the efficient administration of justice.
What is the effect of the suspension on Atty. Santamaria?	During the six-month suspension, Atty. Santamaria is prohibited from practicing law, which includes representing clients, appearing in court, and providing legal advice. He must also notify his clients and the courts of his suspension.
Can Atty. Santamaria be disbarred for similar future actions?	Yes, the Supreme Court sternly warned Atty. Santamaria that repetition of the same or similar acts of disobedience would be dealt with more severely. This could potentially lead to a longer suspension or even disbarment.

This case serves as a reminder to all members of the bar about the importance of respecting and complying with court orders. The legal profession demands adherence to ethical standards and a commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial system. Failure to meet these obligations can result in severe consequences, including suspension from the practice of law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: CA-G.R. CV NO. 96282, A.C. No. 11173, June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Breach of Notarial Duty and Disrespect for Court Orders: Grounds for Disbarment

The Supreme Court held that Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. was disbarred for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders. The Court found him guilty of violating the notarial law by notarizing documents for deceased individuals and for his repeated failure to comply with court directives, demonstrating a lack of respect for the judicial system. This decision underscores the serious consequences for lawyers who neglect their duties as notaries public and disregard the authority of the courts.

When Silence Speaks Volumes: An Attorney’s Disregard for Court Authority

This case revolves around a disbarment petition filed against Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. for gross misconduct. The charges stemmed from his notarization of a falsified Deed of Sale and a Joint Affidavit, both purportedly executed by deceased individuals. Beyond the falsification allegations, the case highlights Atty. Quesada’s repeated failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives to submit a comment on the complaint, leading to multiple fines and ultimately, an order for his arrest. The core legal question is whether Atty. Quesada’s actions constitute a violation of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the court, warranting disciplinary action, including disbarment.

Initially, Romeo A. Zarcilla and Marita Bumanglag filed a complaint against Atty. Quesada, alleging his involvement in the falsification of public documents. Zarcilla claimed that Atty. Quesada notarized a Deed of Sale, making it appear that his deceased parents sold a parcel of land to Spouses Quezada. He also notarized a Joint Affidavit of the same deceased parents for the administrative reconstitution of the land title. However, Bumanglag later recanted, stating she facilitated the sale and that she made it appear that Zarcilla’s parents sold the property because the title was still under their name. In a resolution, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor exonerated Atty. Quesada for insufficiency of evidence.

The matter took a turn when Zarcilla withdrew the falsification cases against Bumanglag upon discovering she was unaware of the contents of her counter-affidavit and was allegedly deceived by her co-accused, including Atty. Quesada. The Supreme Court then required Atty. Quesada to comment on the complaint against him. Despite multiple extensions and warnings, Atty. Quesada failed to file his comment, leading the Court to impose fines and eventually order his arrest. It was only after the arrest order that Atty. Quesada submitted his comment, claiming political harassment and vengeance, and paid the imposed fines.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was tasked to investigate the matter and recommended Atty. Quesada’s disbarment, a decision adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. The Supreme Court emphasized that disbarment cases are sui generis, focusing on whether the respondent is fit to continue as an officer of the court. While the Court acknowledged the need for substantial evidence to prove allegations, it also noted that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalties.

The Court declined to rule on the falsification charges against Atty. Quesada, stating that such determination should be made in appropriate criminal or civil proceedings. However, the Court found Atty. Quesada in violation of notarial law. Specifically, he notarized the Deed of Sale and Joint Affidavit when the supposed signatories, Zarcilla’s parents, were already deceased. This violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires the affiant’s personal appearance before the notary public.

The Court emphasized that a notary public must verify the genuineness of the signature and ensure the document is the party’s free act. Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Atty. Quesada’s actions were deemed to perpetuate a fraud, violating his oath as a lawyer to obey the laws and do no falsehood.

Notarization is not a mere routine act; it carries substantive public interest, converting private documents into public documents with full faith and credit. Notaries public must observe utmost care in performing their duties to maintain public confidence. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

Beyond the notarial law violation, the Court highlighted Atty. Quesada’s defiance of its directives. His repeated disregard of Court resolutions to file his comment demonstrated gross misconduct and insubordination. It took a warrant of arrest to compel him to comply, and even then, he offered no apology or justification for his delay. The Court stated that his actions constituted willful disobedience of lawful orders, sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension, including willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court:

Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer must uphold the dignity and authority of the court through obedience to its orders. Atty. Quesada’s actions demonstrated a lack of moral character, honesty, and probity, rendering him unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. His repeated disobedience and lack of remorse justified the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court concluded that Atty. Quesada was guilty of gross misconduct and willful disobedience, making him unfit to continue in the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Quesada’s notarization of documents for deceased individuals and his repeated failure to comply with court orders constituted gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Supreme Court considered his violations of notarial law and his disrespect for judicial authority.
Why was Atty. Quesada disbarred?	Atty. Quesada was disbarred due to his gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders. These included notarizing documents for deceased individuals and repeatedly ignoring the Supreme Court’s directives to file a comment on the complaint against him.
What is the significance of personal appearance in notarization?	Personal appearance is crucial in notarization to verify the genuineness of the signatory’s signature and ensure the document is the party’s free act and deed. Without personal appearance, the notary cannot ascertain the authenticity of the document and the signatory’s consent.
What rule did Atty. Quesada violate regarding notarial practice?	Atty. Quesada violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires the affiant’s personal presence before the notary during notarization. This rule aims to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of notarized documents.
What does it mean for a disbarment case to be ‘sui generis’?	A disbarment case being ‘sui generis’ means it is a unique proceeding, neither purely civil nor purely criminal. It is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers to determine if they are still fit to practice law.
What is the effect of notarization on a private document?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. This gives the document a presumption of regularity and legality, which is why notaries public must exercise due care.
What constitutes willful disobedience of a court order?	Willful disobedience of a court order involves intentionally disregarding or failing to comply with a lawful directive from a court. This can include ignoring deadlines, failing to submit required documents, or refusing to follow the court’s instructions.
Can a lawyer be disciplined for disobeying court orders?	Yes, a lawyer can be disciplined for disobeying court orders. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for suspension or disbarment.

This case serves as a stern reminder to lawyers of their duties as officers of the court and the importance of upholding the integrity of the notarial process. Failure to comply with these duties can lead to severe consequences, including disbarment, thereby preventing them from practicing law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROMEO A. ZARCILLA AND MARITA BUMANGLAG, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR., RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 63989, March 13, 2018

March 13, 2018

Disobeying Court Orders: Contempt and Property Rights in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of respecting final and executory court decisions. This case clarifies that individuals who knowingly act in ways that undermine court orders, even if they are not direct parties to the original case, can be held in contempt. The ruling underscores the principle that obstructing justice, whether directly or indirectly, carries consequences and upholds the integrity of the judicial system. It serves as a crucial reminder that compliance with court orders is not merely a suggestion, but a legal obligation that binds all, regardless of their direct involvement in the original dispute.

A Tangled Web: When a Loan Default Undermines a Supreme Court Mandate

This case, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Federico A. Serra, revolves around a long-standing dispute over a property in Masbate. RCBC sought to enforce a decades-old order compelling Serra to sell the land, where RCBC’s business center was located, to the bank. During the legal battles, Serra mortgaged the property to Spouses Andueza. When Serra defaulted on his loan, Andueza initiated foreclosure proceedings, potentially undermining RCBC’s right to acquire the property as previously decreed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether Serra and the Spouses Andueza’s actions constituted indirect contempt of court by disregarding the High Court’s earlier rulings.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on whether the respondents’ actions demonstrated a willful disregard for the authority and dignity of the court. Contempt of court is defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its restricted sense, it involves despising the authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The Rules of Court outline two types of contempt: direct and indirect. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court, while indirect contempt, relevant here, is committed outside the court’s presence.

RCBC accused the respondents of indirect contempt under Rule 71, specifically Section 3, paragraphs (b) and (d), which pertain to disobedience of a court order and conduct impeding the administration of justice, respectively. The Court highlighted its previous decisions in G.R. Nos. 103338, 182478, 182664, and most importantly, 203241, all affirming RCBC’s superior right to the property. Specifically, G.R. No. 203241 had a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing any actions to remove RCBC from the property.

The TRO issued by the Court in G.R. No. 203241 explicitly restrained Serra, the RTC-Makati, and their agents from removing or threatening to remove RCBC from the subject property. The subsequent decision in the same case directed the RTC-Makati to issue a writ of execution in favor of RCBC. Central to the Court’s reasoning was Serra’s deliberate attempt to evade his obligation to RCBC. The Court noted that:

In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeks to enforce the decision which became final and executory 911 15 April 1994. This decision orders Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of RCBC. However, to evade his obligation to RCBC, Serra transferred the property to his mother Ablao, who then transferred it to Liok. Serra’s action prompted RCBC to file the Annulment case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra for his own advantage.

The Court found Serra guilty of indirect contempt due to his actions which, in effect, allowed RCBC’s removal from the property. Serra’s defense, arguing that the foreclosure sale was a supervening event precluding the execution of the Court’s decision, was rejected. The court referenced the Abrigo v. Flores case, where a supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became final and executory, or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality. The Court found that Serra was aware of the likelihood of foreclosure. Serra’s inaction was a clear attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling, justifying the imposition of a fine.

Even though they were not parties in G.R. No. 203241, the Spouses Andueza were found to have knowledge of the pending litigation and the TRO affecting the property. The annotation of the TRO on the property’s title served as constructive notice. Their decision to proceed with the foreclosure despite this knowledge demonstrated a disregard for the Court’s order and its intent to protect RCBC’s rights. Therefore, the Spouses Andueza’s actions constituted indirect contempt, warranting a similar fine of P30,000.

The other respondents, including the counsels of the Spouses Andueza and the public officials involved in the foreclosure proceedings, were absolved of indirect contempt. The Court reasoned that these individuals were either acting in their professional capacity to protect their clients’ interests or performing their ministerial duties in accordance with established procedures. The Court emphasized that there was no clear and convincing evidence that they willfully disobeyed the Court’s orders or intended to impede the administration of justice.

The Court noted the need to lift the TRO it had previously issued in this case. This decision was based on the fact that RCBC had already filed a separate petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 137314), challenging the foreclosure sale and seeking injunctive relief. The Supreme Court recognized that the Court of Appeals was better positioned to resolve the factual and legal issues surrounding the foreclosure proceedings and the validity of RCBC’s claims over the property. The contempt petition was not the proper venue to determine the validity of the mortgage between Serra and the Spouses Andueza.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the respondents’ actions, specifically the foreclosure of a mortgage on a property subject to a prior Supreme Court order, constituted indirect contempt of court.
Who were found guilty of indirect contempt?	Federico A. Serra, the original landowner, and Spouses Eduardo and Henedina Andueza, the mortgagees who foreclosed on the property, were found guilty of indirect contempt.
Why were Serra and the Spouses Andueza found guilty?	Serra was found guilty for defaulting on his loan obligation, leading to foreclosure, which undermined the Court’s order to sell the property to RCBC. The Spouses Andueza were found guilty for proceeding with the foreclosure despite knowing about the existing TRO protecting RCBC’s rights.
What is indirect contempt of court?	Indirect contempt involves actions committed outside the court’s presence that demonstrate disobedience or resistance to a lawful court order, or that tend to impede the administration of justice.
What was the penalty for indirect contempt in this case?	Both Federico A. Serra and Spouses Eduardo and Henedina Andueza were each fined P30,000.00.
Were the other respondents found guilty?	No, the other respondents, including the counsels of the Spouses Andueza and the public officials involved in the foreclosure, were not found guilty of indirect contempt.
Why were the other respondents not found guilty?	The Court found that they were acting in their professional capacity or performing their ministerial duties without any clear intent to disobey the Court’s orders or impede justice.
What happened to the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in this case?	The TRO that was previously issued by the Supreme Court in this case was lifted.
Why was the TRO lifted?	The TRO was lifted because RCBC had filed a separate petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was deemed the more appropriate venue to resolve the issues surrounding the foreclosure sale.

This case serves as a clear warning against actions that undermine judicial orders, even indirectly. It reinforces the principle that respect for the courts and their decisions is essential for maintaining the rule of law. While the Court lifted the TRO in this specific case, it did so to allow a more appropriate forum to address the underlying property dispute, underscoring the importance of following proper legal channels.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Federico A. Serra, G.R. No. 216124, July 19, 2017

February 12, 2018

Upholding Court Authority: The Limits of Defiance in Intra-Corporate Disputes

The Supreme Court has affirmed that parties cannot defy court orders, even if they believe those orders are invalid and are challenging them in court. The case underscores the importance of complying with judicial directives while pursuing legal remedies, reinforcing the principle that respect for court authority is paramount. This ruling clarifies the responsibilities of parties involved in intra-corporate disputes and reinforces the judiciary’s power to enforce its mandates.

St. Francis School Saga: When Can You Disobey a Court Order?

The case revolves around an intra-corporate dispute within St. Francis School of General Trias, Cavite, Inc. Respondent Laurita Custodio filed a complaint against petitioners, including Bro. Bernard Oca and Bro. Dennis Magbanua, alleging violations of the Corporation Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued orders directing the petitioners to turn over collected fees to a designated cashier, Herminia Reynante, to ensure the orderly operation of the school. However, the petitioners only partially complied, leading Custodio to file a petition to cite them for indirect contempt.

The RTC found the petitioners guilty of indirect contempt for failing to fully comply with its orders. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, holding that their defiance prejudiced the school’s operations due to lack of funds. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that they had complied in good faith and that the validity of the RTC orders was being questioned in a separate case.

At the heart of the matter lies the issue of whether the petitioners’ disobedience to the RTC orders constituted indirect contempt. Indirect contempt, as defined in Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, includes disobedience to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the petitioners’ actions met this definition, considering their claims of good faith and pending legal challenges to the orders.

The Supreme Court emphasized the inherent power of all courts to punish contempt, stating that it is essential to preserve order in judicial proceedings and enforce the due administration of justice. The Court quoted Sison v. Caoibes, Jr., highlighting that the power to declare a person in contempt of court is:

a means to protect and preserve the dignity of the court, the solemnity of the proceedings therein, and the administration of justice from callous misbehavior, offensive personalities, and contumacious refusal to comply with court orders.

The Court distinguished between direct and indirect contempt, noting that indirect contempt is punished only after a written petition is filed and the charged party is given an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the petitioners were charged with indirect contempt for disobeying a lawful court order.

The petitioners argued that they had complied with the October 21, 2002, RTC Order in good faith, claiming it pertained only to matriculation fees. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the order encompassed all collectibles, fees, and accounts, not just matriculation fees. The Court pointed to the wording of the order:

Regarding the collection of matriculation fees and other collectibles, Ms. Herminia Reynante is hereby designated by the Court to act as cashier of the school to the exclusion of others with authority to collect all fees and, together with plaintiff Laurita Custodio, to pay all accounts.

The Court found that the subsequent RTC orders did not unduly expand the scope of the initial order. Custodio’s Comment simply pointed out the petitioners’ failure to remit specific amounts, and the March 24, 2003 Order reiterated the directive to turn over all fees.

Despite these clear directives, the petitioners refused to comply, instead filing various motions and pleadings to avoid compliance. The Supreme Court viewed these actions as a contumacious refusal to abide by the RTC orders. Their defense of being denied due process was also rejected, as they had attended hearings and filed pleadings, demonstrating that they were given ample opportunity to present their position.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the petitioners’ argument that they could refuse to follow the RTC orders because their legality was being questioned in the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that questioning the orders does not stay their enforcement or implementation. In intra-corporate controversies, all orders of the trial court are immediately executory, as stated in Section 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure governing Intra-Corporate Controversies:

All decisions and orders issued under these Rules shall immediately be executory except the awards for moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, if any. No appeal or petition taken therefrom shall stay the enforcement or implementation of the decision or order, unless restrained by an appellate court. Interlocutory orders shall not be subject to appeal.

The Court noted that the petitioners did not obtain any injunction to stop the implementation of the RTC orders, nor was there an injunction to prevent the RTC from hearing and ruling on the contempt case. Thus, their refusal to comply could not be excused.

The Court also rejected the application of judicial courtesy, a principle that allows a lower court to suspend proceedings to avoid mooting an issue raised in a higher court. The Court reasoned that the issue in the contempt case (willful disobedience) was distinct from the issue in the other case (validity of the orders). Even if the orders were later found invalid, the petitioners could still be cited for contempt for their prior defiance.

The Supreme Court also clarified the burden of proof in contempt proceedings. While criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil contempt only requires a showing of more than a mere preponderance of evidence. The Court found that the contempt proceeding in this case was more civil than criminal, as Custodio was seeking enforcement of the RTC orders. Therefore, proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not necessary.

However, the Court ruled that the charges against Alejandro N. Mojica and Atty. Silvestre Pascual should be dismissed. The Court emphasized that the power to punish contempt must be exercised cautiously and sparingly. There was no evidence of conspiracy to hold both Alejandro and Atty. Silvestre liable for contempt. Alejandro merely collected matriculation fees as a designated cashier, and Atty. Silvestre, while a member of the Board of Trustees, did not have the sole authority to enforce compliance with court orders.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioners’ disobedience to the Regional Trial Court’s orders constituted indirect contempt of court, despite their claims of good faith and pending legal challenges to the orders.
What is indirect contempt?	Indirect contempt involves disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court. It is punished after a written petition and an opportunity to be heard are given to the party charged.
Did the Supreme Court find the petitioners guilty of indirect contempt?	Yes, the Supreme Court found the petitioners guilty of indirect contempt, except for Alejandro N. Mojica and Atty. Silvestre Pascual, as there was insufficient evidence to prove their involvement.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the petitioners’ argument that they acted in good faith?	The Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ actions demonstrated a contumacious refusal to abide by the RTC orders, and their defense of being denied due process was not valid.
Does questioning a court order stay its enforcement or implementation?	No, questioning a court order does not stay its enforcement or implementation. In intra-corporate controversies, all orders of the trial court are immediately executory unless restrained by an appellate court.
What is judicial courtesy, and why was it not applicable in this case?	Judicial courtesy is a principle that allows a lower court to suspend proceedings to avoid mooting an issue raised in a higher court. It was not applicable here because the contempt case and the case questioning the validity of the orders involved separate issues.
What is the burden of proof in civil contempt proceedings?	In civil contempt proceedings, the burden of proof is on the complainant, and while the proof need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, it must amount to more than a mere preponderance of evidence.
Why were Alejandro N. Mojica and Atty. Silvestre Pascual not found guilty of indirect contempt?	The Court ruled that there was no sufficient evidence of conspiracy to hold both Alejandro and Atty. Silvestre liable for contempt. Alejandro merely collected matriculation fees, and Atty. Silvestre, as a member of the Board of Trustees, did not have the sole authority to enforce compliance with court orders.

In conclusion, this case reinforces the fundamental principle that parties must comply with court orders, even while pursuing legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that respect for the judiciary is essential for maintaining order and ensuring the effective administration of justice. The Court underscored that mere disagreement with a court’s directive does not justify disobedience, especially in the absence of a stay order or injunction.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Bro. Bernard Oca, et al. vs. Laurita Custodio, G.R. No. 199825, July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Contempt of Court: Valid Enforcement Despite Main Case Reversal

The Supreme Court held that a contempt case is not automatically moot simply because the main case where the injunction originated was reversed. This means that individuals can still be held liable for violating an existing court order, even if that order is later overturned. The key is whether the violation occurred while the order was still in effect; those who defy court orders during their validity cannot escape accountability merely because the underlying case outcome changed later on.

Can You Be Held in Contempt After a Case is Reversed?

This case, J.O.S. Managing Builders, Inc. v. United Overseas Bank Philippines, revolves around a petition for contempt filed by J.O.S. Managing Builders, Inc. (J.O.S.) and Eduardo B. Olaguer against United Overseas Bank Philippines (UOBP), Emmanuel T. Mangosing, and David Goh Chai Eng. The central issue is whether the reversal of a lower court’s decision, which initially granted a writ of preliminary injunction, renders a contempt case moot if the alleged contemptuous act occurred while the injunction was still in effect. The Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which a party can be held in contempt of court, even after the order violated has been reversed.

The factual backdrop involves an annulment case filed by J.O.S. against UOBP concerning the extrajudicial foreclosure of certain properties. In 2000, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, preventing UOBP from consolidating title to the properties or taking any actions prejudicial to J.O.S. While this injunction was in place, UOBP sold the properties to Onshore Strategic Assets, Inc. This action led J.O.S. to file a petition to declare UOBP in contempt of court, arguing that the sale violated the existing writ. The contempt case was initially denied dismissal but later dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after the Court of Appeals reversed the decision in the annulment case, arguing that the preliminary injunction was automatically dissolved.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the RTC’s decision to dismiss the contempt case. The Court emphasized that a case becomes moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy due to supervening events, making any judicial declaration devoid of practical value. However, the Court distinguished this case from previous rulings where the acts violating the injunction occurred after the injunction was lifted. In this instance, the sale of the properties—the act alleged to be in violation of the 2000 writ—occurred while the writ was still subsisting. The Supreme Court cited the case of Lee v. Court of Appeals:

An injunction or restraining order which is not void must be obeyed while it remains in full force and effect, and has not been overturned, that is, in general, until the injunction or restraining order has been set aside, vacated, or modified by the court which granted it, or until the order or decree awarding it has been reversed on appeal or error. The injunction must be obeyed irrespective of the ultimate validity of the order, and no matter how unreasonable and unjust the injunction may be in its terms.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court clarified that the subsequent reversal of the annulment case and the dissolution of the 2000 writ do not absolve UOBP from potential liability for violating the writ while it was still in effect. This ruling underscores the importance of complying with court orders, regardless of one’s opinion of their validity, until such orders are officially lifted or modified.

Moreover, the Court addressed the procedural issues raised in the petition. It found that the RTC erred in expunging J.O.S.’s motion for reconsideration based on a violation of the three-day notice rule. The Court noted that while the three-day notice is generally mandatory, a liberal interpretation is warranted when the adverse party has had sufficient opportunity to study the motion and present their opposition, thus satisfying the requirements of due process. The Court found that UOBP had adequate time to respond to the motion for reconsideration, nullifying the basis for its expungement.

The Court also addressed the issue of whether the RTC erred in giving due course to UOBP’s motion to dismiss filed after their answer. The Court clarified that a motion to dismiss can be filed even after an answer if it is based on grounds that arose after the answer was submitted. Since UOBP’s motion to dismiss was based on the CA’s reversal of the trial court’s decision, an event that transpired after the filing of their answer, the motion was deemed properly filed.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC for the continuation of the trial. The Court emphasized that it was not making a determination on whether UOBP was actually guilty of indirect contempt. Instead, it reaffirmed the importance of following proper adversarial procedures, including notice, written charges, and an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves before a judgment of guilt is rendered. This decision highlights the significance of respecting court orders and the proper procedures for adjudicating contempt cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a contempt case becomes moot when the order that was allegedly violated (a preliminary injunction) is later reversed on appeal.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that the contempt case was not moot because the alleged violation occurred while the injunction was still in effect. The reversal of the injunction did not retroactively excuse the violation.
What is a writ of preliminary injunction?	A writ of preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily restrains a party from performing certain acts, pending the resolution of the main case.
What is indirect contempt of court?	Indirect contempt involves actions committed outside the presence of the court that tend to degrade or obstruct the administration of justice, such as disobeying a court order.
Why did the RTC dismiss the contempt case?	The RTC dismissed the contempt case because it believed that the reversal of the main case (annulment case) automatically dissolved the preliminary injunction, rendering the contempt case moot.
What is the three-day notice rule?	The three-day notice rule requires that a written motion and notice of hearing be served to the other party at least three days before the hearing. This is to give the other party enough time to prepare.
Can a motion to dismiss be filed after an answer?	Generally, a motion to dismiss must be filed before the answer. However, it can be filed later if the grounds for dismissal arise after the answer has been submitted.
What does it mean for a case to be remanded?	When a case is remanded, it is sent back to a lower court for further proceedings, such as the continuation of the trial, based on the instructions of the higher court.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the binding nature of court orders and the potential consequences of disregarding them. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that individuals and entities cannot evade accountability for violating court orders simply because the underlying case takes an unexpected turn. Compliance with judicial directives remains paramount, reinforcing the integrity of the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: J.O.S. Managing Builders, Inc. v. United Overseas Bank Philippines, G.R. No. 219815, September 14, 2016

July 3, 2017

Consequences of Misrepresentation: Falsifying MCLE Compliance and Disbarment

The Supreme Court held that an attorney’s act of falsifying Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance, coupled with repeated failures to obey court orders, constitutes grave misconduct warranting disbarment. This decision underscores the importance of honesty and integrity in the legal profession, clarifying that misrepresentation, especially regarding compliance with mandatory legal education, can lead to severe disciplinary action. Lawyers must ensure accuracy in their dealings with the court and diligently fulfill their ethical obligations to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

When a False Compliance Number Leads to Disbarment: The Story of Atty. Echanez

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, alleging serious misconduct. The core issue arises from Atty. Echanez’s repeated misrepresentation of his MCLE compliance in several court documents. Mapalad discovered, upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, that Atty. Echanez had not fulfilled his MCLE requirements for the First and Second Compliance Periods. This discovery led to accusations of deliberately misleading the courts and other parties, prompting Mapalad to seek Atty. Echanez’s disbarment.

The heart of the matter rests on the importance of adhering to the standards set forth in the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and Bar Matter No. 850, which governs MCLE compliance. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the gravity of Atty. Echanez’s actions, especially his disregard for legal orders and his repeated dishonesty. Specifically, the Court examined whether Atty. Echanez’s misconduct justified the severe penalty of disbarment, considering the ethical duties of lawyers and the integrity of the legal profession.

The Supreme Court found Atty. Echanez culpable on multiple grounds. It was established that he violated Bar Matter No. 850 by failing to comply with MCLE requirements. Despite this non-compliance, Atty. Echanez repeatedly used a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings before various trial courts. This act was considered a demonstration of bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit, as it misled the courts, litigants, and his professional colleagues. The Court emphasized that such actions undermine the integrity of the legal system and disrespect the very rules it is tasked to uphold.

“Respondent’s act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a mockery of the courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this Court that authored the rules and regulations that the respondent violated.”

Moreover, the Lawyer’s Oath, as outlined in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, mandates attorneys to uphold the laws and legal orders, abstain from falsehoods, and act with fidelity to both the court and their clients. Similarly, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR states that a lawyer must obey the laws of the land and avoid dishonest conduct. Canon 10, Rule 10.01 further emphasizes the need for candor and good faith towards the court, forbidding any falsehood or misleading conduct.

The Court noted that Atty. Echanez’s misrepresentation endangered his own clients, as pleadings containing false information hold no legal effect. This breach directly violates Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR, which require lawyers to serve their clients with competence, diligence, and fidelity. Furthermore, Atty. Echanez repeatedly disregarded legal orders from the trial court, the IBP-CBD, and the Supreme Court itself. This defiance demonstrated a profound lack of respect for the judicial system and its authority.

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.

Respondent’s culpability was aggravated by his prior disciplinary sanctions by the IBP. He had been previously found guilty of unauthorized notarial practice, leading to suspensions from legal practice. This history underscored a pattern of disregard for ethical and legal obligations, further justifying the decision to disbar him. Taken together, Atty. Echanez’s repeated dishonesty, defiance of court orders, and prior sanctions compelled the Court to uphold the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation for disbarment.

The Supreme Court reiterated that lawyers play a crucial role in the administration of justice and must maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. By engaging in deceitful conduct and disrespecting legal processes, Atty. Echanez failed to uphold these essential standards, thereby warranting his removal from the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Echanez should be disbarred for falsifying his MCLE compliance and repeatedly disobeying court orders. The Supreme Court considered the gravity of these ethical violations and their impact on the legal profession’s integrity.
What is MCLE compliance?	MCLE, or Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, requires lawyers to complete a certain number of hours of continuing legal education. This ensures they stay updated on legal developments and maintain their competence.
What did Atty. Echanez do wrong?	Atty. Echanez falsely indicated that he had complied with MCLE requirements in his court pleadings when he had not. He also repeatedly ignored court orders and notices from the IBP.
What is the Lawyer’s Oath?	The Lawyer’s Oath is a solemn promise made by attorneys to uphold the law, act with integrity, and serve their clients and the court with fidelity. It is a foundational ethical commitment for all lawyers.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?	The CPR is a set of ethical rules governing the conduct of lawyers. It outlines their duties to the court, their clients, and the legal profession.
What are the potential consequences of using a false MCLE compliance number?	Using a false MCLE compliance number can lead to disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment. It also puts clients at risk, as pleadings with false information may be deemed invalid.
What does disbarment mean?	Disbarment is the most severe disciplinary action against a lawyer, resulting in the permanent revocation of their license to practice law. It effectively ends their legal career.
Why did the Supreme Court disbar Atty. Echanez?	The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Echanez due to his repeated dishonesty, defiance of court orders, and prior disciplinary sanctions. These actions demonstrated a pattern of disregard for ethical and legal obligations.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of honesty, integrity, and compliance with legal and ethical obligations for all lawyers. It serves as a reminder that misrepresentation and disregard for court orders can lead to severe consequences.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers and the serious consequences of failing to meet those obligations. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for honesty and compliance within the legal profession. This commitment ensures the integrity of the judicial system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR. VS. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, A.C. No. 10911, June 06, 2017

June 6, 2017

Protecting Property Rights: When Courts Can Order Padlocks Pending Litigation

In Pablo and Pablina Marcelo-Mendoza v. Peroxide Phils., Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the validity of a preliminary injunction that ordered the padlocking of a property during an ongoing legal dispute. The court emphasized that injunctions are appropriate when there is a clear showing of rights violation and an urgent need to prevent further damage. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in preserving the status quo and protecting property interests while ensuring that such remedies are applied judiciously and proportionately.

Landlord’s Overreach: Can Property Ownership Justify Disregarding Court Orders?

This case revolves around a long-standing dispute between Pablo and Pablina Marcelo-Mendoza (the petitioners), who are the landowners, and Peroxide Phils., Inc. (PPI), the lessee, concerning a parcel of land in Valenzuela City. The conflict began with an ejectment case filed by the petitioners against PPI, which led to a series of legal actions, including third-party claims and a contested sheriff’s sale. Central to the dispute is a contract of lease that contains specific provisions regarding improvements made on the property by PPI.

The legal battle intensified when PPI secured a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to protect its properties and improvements on the land. Despite the WPI, Pablo forcibly entered the property, dismantled machinery, and even opened a resort, actions that PPI claimed violated the court’s orders. The core legal question is whether the lower courts acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting PPI’s motion to padlock the property pending resolution of the main case, given the petitioners’ claim of ownership.

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing that the issuance of the WPI was justified to protect PPI’s rights over the improvements it introduced on the property. The Court referenced specific provisions in the Contract of Lease, which granted PPI certain rights regarding the buildings, factories, and machinery it erected on the land. These provisions were crucial in establishing PPI’s claim to ownership over the improvements, which the petitioners’ actions threatened.

“A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts,” the Court cited. This “strong arm of equity” is intended to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. Before a WPI can be issued, it must be established that the right sought to be protected is substantial, clear, and urgent to prevent serious damage. In this case, PPI demonstrated a clear right to its improvements and the potential for irreparable harm due to the petitioners’ actions.

The Court underscored Pablo’s blatant disregard for the lower court’s orders, describing his actions as “absolute audacity” that went unpunished. His forcible entry, dismantling of machinery, and operation of a resort on the property were direct violations of the WPI and the subsequent orders to padlock the premises. This defiance further supported the need for injunctive relief to maintain order and prevent further damage to PPI’s interests.

The petitioners’ argument that their ownership of the land superseded the court’s orders was rejected. The Court clarified that the WPI was not a determination of ownership but a provisional remedy to protect PPI’s claimed rights during the litigation. The act of padlocking and re-padlocking the property was intended to enjoin the petitioners from disposing of PPI’s properties, ensuring that the status quo was maintained until the court could make a final determination on the merits of the case.

Moreover, the Court pointed to a series of previous orders issued by different judges, all commanding that the property be padlocked, which underscored the consistent finding that PPI’s rights needed protection during the litigation. The Court emphasized that the injunction was not only justified but necessary to prevent the diminishing of PPI’s properties, as evidenced by the sheriffs’ reports documenting the gradual disappearance of PPI’s assets from the premises.

The decision also addressed the issue of whether the restoration of PPI to the property was tantamount to a disposition of the main case. The Court clarified that restoring PPI to possession was a provisional remedy based on a probable violation of PPI’s rights. This did not preempt the ultimate question of the petitioners’ titles or the validity of their claims, which would be determined in the final resolution of the case.

In addition to upholding the WPI, the Court sustained the CA’s finding that Judge Paneda should inhibit himself from the case. The Court agreed that this was in the best interest of both parties and necessary to preserve the integrity of the court. The Court cited Judge Paneda’s failure to act on PPI’s motion for reconsideration for an extended period, which constituted undue delay and eroded public confidence in the judiciary. “There should be no more doubt that undue inaction on judicial concerns is not just undesirable but more so detestable,” the Court quoted, emphasizing the importance of timely judicial action.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that courts have the authority to issue injunctions to protect property rights and maintain the status quo during litigation. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting court orders and the consequences of defying them. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing property rights with the need for provisional remedies to prevent irreparable harm. By upholding the WPI and ordering the padlocking of the property, the Court sought to ensure that PPI’s rights were adequately protected until the final resolution of the case, and that the integrity of the judicial process was upheld.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion by granting the petitioners’ motion to remove the padlock from the subject property, effectively challenging the validity of the preliminary injunction.
What is a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI)?	A WPI is an order issued by a court to restrain a party from performing certain acts. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until the court can make a final determination on the merits of the case, preventing irreparable harm.
Why did the lower courts order the padlocking of the property?	The courts ordered the padlocking to protect PPI’s rights over the improvements it made on the land. This was necessary to prevent the petitioners from disposing of or damaging these properties while the case was being litigated.
Did the Court determine ownership in this case?	No, the Court did not determine ownership. The ruling focused on preserving the status quo and protecting PPI’s claimed rights pending the final resolution of the case, and the injunction did not determine who owned what.
What was the significance of the Contract of Lease in this case?	The Contract of Lease contained provisions regarding PPI’s right to erect buildings, factories, and machinery on the property. These clauses were critical in establishing PPI’s claim over the improvements and justifying the need for injunctive relief.
What does it mean for a judge to inhibit themselves from a case?	Inhibition means that a judge voluntarily or is compelled to disqualify themselves from hearing a case. This is typically done to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety, ensuring fairness and impartiality in the proceedings.
Why did the Court order Judge Paneda to inhibit himself?	The Court ordered Judge Paneda to inhibit himself because he failed to act on PPI’s motion for reconsideration for an extended period. This delay constituted undue inaction and eroded public confidence in the judiciary.
What happens now that the Supreme Court has ruled on this case?	The case will continue in the lower court with a new judge, and the property will remain padlocked to protect PPI’s rights. The new judge will proceed with the trial to determine the final rights and obligations of the parties.

This case illustrates the critical balance courts must strike between protecting property rights and ensuring that provisional remedies, such as injunctions, are used judiciously and proportionately. The decision highlights the importance of respecting court orders and the consequences of defying them, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in maintaining order and protecting legitimate claims during litigation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Pablo and Pablina Marcelo-Mendoza v. Peroxide Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 203492, April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

Attorney’s Duty: Compliance with Court Orders and Ethical Conduct

This Supreme Court decision emphasizes that lawyers have a solemn duty to obey court orders and maintain respect for the judicial system. Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel was suspended from legal practice for one year due to his repeated failure to comply with resolutions from the Court of Appeals. The Court found that his actions constituted gross misconduct and insubordination, thereby highlighting that lawyers are expected to uphold the integrity of the legal profession by promptly addressing and acting on court directives. This ruling reinforces the importance of an attorney’s responsibility not only to their clients but also to the courts and the administration of justice.

Disregarding Court Orders: How Negligence Led to an Attorney’s Suspension

The case of In Re: Resolution Dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals In C.A. – GR.CV No. 94656 vs. Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel stemmed from Atty. Mortel’s handling of a case before the Court of Appeals, Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Angelita De Jesus. The Court of Appeals issued multiple resolutions directing Atty. Mortel to take specific actions, such as submitting his client’s written conformity to a Motion to Withdraw Appeal and providing the client’s current address. Despite numerous notices and warnings, Atty. Mortel consistently failed to comply, ignoring a total of twelve resolutions. This pattern of non-compliance led the Court of Appeals to suspend him from legal practice for six months. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case, leading to further scrutiny of Atty. Mortel’s conduct and the actions of another attorney involved, Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose.

The Supreme Court’s decision delves into the responsibilities of both Atty. Mortel and Atty. Jose. Atty. Mortel’s defense centered on his claim that he did not receive the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, as they were allegedly not forwarded to him by the staff of MFV Jose Law Office, where he had arranged to receive his mail. However, the Court found this excuse unconvincing, emphasizing that an attorney has a duty to maintain an efficient system for receiving and responding to judicial notices. The Court highlighted that it was Atty. Mortel’s responsibility to ensure that he was kept informed of the case’s status. He could not simply rely on the assumption that his motion to withdraw the appeal had been granted.

Atty. Jose, the managing partner of MFV Jose Law Office, also faced scrutiny for his role in the matter. The Court questioned why he did not adequately supervise his messenger, who was tasked with informing Atty. Mortel of any relevant court communications. The Court noted that Atty. Jose could have taken simple steps to ensure Atty. Mortel received the notices, such as personally contacting him or following up with his messenger. Furthermore, the Court raised concerns about Atty. Jose’s decision to read a resolution from the Supreme Court that was addressed to Atty. Mortel, suggesting a potential breach of privacy. Canon 21, Rule 21.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility generally allows disclosure of a client’s affairs only to partners or associates of the law firm, unless the client prohibits it.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized several key principles of legal ethics and professional responsibility. First, the Court reiterated that lawyers must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. This includes showing respect for the courts and judicial officers. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states that “A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.” By ignoring the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, Atty. Mortel demonstrated a clear lack of respect for the judicial system.

Second, the Court underscored the importance of attorneys’ diligence and competence in handling their clients’ cases. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further states that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” The Court found that Atty. Mortel’s failure to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directives prejudiced his client’s right to a just determination of her case, as it prevented the withdrawal of the appeal she desired.

Third, the Court addressed Atty. Mortel’s argument that he believed the case was closed and terminated after filing the Motion to Withdraw Appeal. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that filing a motion does not result in automatic withdrawal of the appeal. The court must still resolve the motion. As a lawyer, Atty. Mortel had an obligation to apprise himself of the court’s resolution and could not simply assume a favorable outcome. This reflects the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for non-compliance.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of reliance on messengers and staff. While attorneys may delegate tasks to their staff, they remain ultimately responsible for ensuring that these tasks are carried out properly. The Court cited Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, stating that an attorney owes it to himself and to his clients to adopt an efficient and orderly system of receiving and attending promptly to all judicial notices. If an attorney entrusts this responsibility to an incompetent or irresponsible person, he must bear the consequences of that decision.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Atty. Mortel guilty of gross misconduct, insubordination, and disrespect for the Court of Appeals’ directives, as well as negligence in handling his client’s case. The Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, increasing Atty. Mortel’s suspension from legal practice to one year. This decision serves as a strong reminder to attorneys of their ethical and professional obligations. It underscores the importance of respecting court orders, diligently attending to clients’ cases, and maintaining an efficient system for managing legal notices.

To further illustrate, consider the following comparative table:

Issue	Atty. Mortel’s Stance	Court’s Finding
Receipt of Court Orders	Claims he did not receive the orders.	Duty to maintain an efficient system for receiving notices.
Belief on Case Closure	Believed the case was closed after filing the motion to withdraw.	Filing a motion does not automatically close the case.
Client’s Prejudice	Argues the client was not prejudiced.	Client was prejudiced due to failure to withdraw appeal as desired.

The Court quoted Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, emphasizing that willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court is grounds for suspension or removal from the bar. This highlights the severity with which the Court views such misconduct. The oath taken by attorneys upon admission to the bar is not an empty promise, but a solemn duty to support the Constitution, obey the laws, and act with good fidelity to the courts and clients. Disregarding court orders undermines this oath and erodes public trust in the legal profession.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the fundamental principles of legal ethics and professional responsibility. It serves as a warning to attorneys that failure to comply with court orders, neglect of client matters, and disrespect for the judicial system will not be tolerated. By imposing a one-year suspension on Atty. Mortel, the Court sent a clear message that attorneys must uphold their ethical obligations and prioritize their duty to the courts and the administration of justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel should be disciplined for failing to comply with multiple resolutions from the Court of Appeals. The resolutions pertained to a case he was handling, and his non-compliance led to a suspension from legal practice.
Why was Atty. Mortel suspended?	Atty. Mortel was suspended for gross misconduct, insubordination, and disrespect towards the Court of Appeals. He repeatedly ignored court directives, which the Supreme Court found to be a violation of his ethical and professional obligations.
What was Atty. Mortel’s defense?	Atty. Mortel claimed he did not receive the Court of Appeals’ resolutions because they were not forwarded to him by the law office where he had arranged to receive mail. He also argued he believed the case was closed after filing a motion to withdraw the appeal.
Did the Supreme Court accept Atty. Mortel’s defense?	No, the Supreme Court did not accept his defense. The Court emphasized that attorneys have a duty to maintain an efficient system for receiving and responding to judicial notices and cannot simply assume a favorable outcome in a case.
What role did Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose play in the case?	Atty. Jose, the managing partner of the law office where Atty. Mortel received his mail, was also scrutinized. The Court questioned why he did not adequately supervise his messenger and ensure Atty. Mortel received the court notices.
What ethical rules did Atty. Mortel violate?	Atty. Mortel violated Canons 7, 10, 11, 12, and 18, as well as Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These rules pertain to upholding the integrity of the legal profession, showing respect for the courts, and serving clients with competence and diligence.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the importance of attorneys’ ethical and professional obligations. It serves as a reminder that attorneys must respect court orders, diligently attend to their clients’ cases, and maintain an efficient system for managing legal notices.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, increasing Atty. Mortel’s suspension from legal practice to one year. Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose was directed to show cause why he should not be disciplined by the Court.

This case serves as a critical reminder that attorneys must prioritize their ethical duties and ensure full compliance with court orders to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and serve their clients effectively. Moving forward, it is essential for legal practitioners to establish robust systems for managing communications from the courts. This includes a heightened awareness of the consequences of neglecting court directives. By adhering to these principles, attorneys can avoid disciplinary actions and contribute to the efficient administration of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN C.A. – GR.CV NO. 94656, A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016

March 20, 2017

Attorney Disbarment: Willful Disobedience of Court Orders and Grave Misconduct

The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Roy Prule Ediza for grave misconduct and willful disobedience to lawful court orders. This decision underscores the high ethical standards required of lawyers and the severe consequences of disregarding judicial directives. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with public interest, demanding unwavering adherence to legal and ethical standards.

When Defiance Leads to Disbarment: The Ediza Case

This case revolves around the administrative complaint filed by spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran against Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, accusing him of deceit and professional misconduct. The dispute originated from a 3.5525-hectare parcel of unregistered land in Misamis Oriental, which was to be transferred to the complainants. Atty. Ediza’s actions, including deceiving the Florans into signing a deed of sale transferring a portion of their land to him and misappropriating proceeds from the land sale, led to the initial suspension of Atty. Ediza from the practice of law for six months.

Following the Court’s decision on October 19, 2011, which included the suspension and directives for restitution, Atty. Ediza repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders. He did not return the documents he had misled the complainants into signing, nor did he pay the ordered sum of P125,463.38 with legal interest. Furthermore, he failed to submit certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Office of the Executive Judge, confirming his desistance from the practice of law during his suspension period. This pattern of non-compliance prompted the Court to issue multiple resolutions, demanding compliance and threatening more severe penalties.

Atty. Ediza’s responses to these resolutions further aggravated his situation. He claimed ignorance regarding the documents in question, alleged the existence of newly discovered evidence, and sought to stay the execution of the Court’s decision. He also reported compliance with the suspension order without providing the necessary certifications. The Supreme Court viewed these actions as a deliberate attempt to defy its authority and obstruct the administration of justice. This defiance prompted the Court to consider the gravity of Atty. Ediza’s misconduct in light of the ethical standards required of legal professionals. The Court quoted Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 12

A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

x x x x

Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.

The Court highlighted the importance of a lawyer’s duty to obey court orders and processes promptly and without resistance. Atty. Ediza’s previous suspension for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility did not deter him from further misconduct. This continued defiance demonstrated a lack of fitness to remain in the legal profession. The Supreme Court cited Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution, which recognizes the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar. The Court also referenced Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides grounds for disbarment or suspension, including willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The Court noted that while the power to disbar is exercised cautiously, Atty. Ediza’s persistent non-compliance and defiance warranted the ultimate disciplinary sanction. The practice of law is a privilege conditioned on adherence to high standards of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession. Atty. Ediza’s conduct demonstrated a clear unfitness to remain in the legal profession, leading to his disbarment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Ediza’s repeated failure to comply with court orders, coupled with his prior ethical violations, warranted disbarment. His willful disobedience and grave misconduct were the primary considerations.
What specific actions led to Atty. Ediza’s disbarment?	His disbarment stemmed from his failure to return documents, pay restitution to the complainants, submit required certifications, and his overall defiance of multiple court orders. His previous suspension also contributed to the decision.
What is the significance of Canon 12, Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	This rule emphasizes a lawyer’s duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. It prohibits lawyers from unduly delaying cases, impeding the execution of judgments, or misusing court processes, all of which Atty. Ediza was found to have violated.
What does the Supreme Court consider when deciding whether to disbar an attorney?	The Court considers the attorney’s misconduct, character, and standing as a legal professional and officer of the Court. Disbarment is reserved for cases of serious misconduct that significantly impact the attorney’s integrity and the public’s trust.
Why is compliance with court orders so important for attorneys?	Compliance with court orders is crucial because attorneys are officers of the court and play a vital role in the administration of justice. Disobedience undermines the authority of the courts and the integrity of the legal system.
What does it mean for an attorney to be ‘stricken off the Roll of Attorneys’?	Being ‘stricken off the Roll of Attorneys’ means that the attorney’s name is permanently removed from the list of lawyers authorized to practice law in the Philippines. It effectively ends their legal career.
What constitutional provision grants the Supreme Court disciplinary authority over lawyers?	Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution recognizes the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members of the Bar. This provision allows the Court to oversee and regulate the conduct of lawyers.
Can a disbarred attorney ever be reinstated to the practice of law?	Reinstatement is possible but requires a rigorous process, including demonstrating rehabilitation, remorse, and fitness to practice law. The attorney must petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement.

The disbarment of Atty. Ediza serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities that come with the privilege of practicing law. Lawyers must uphold the law, respect the courts, and act with integrity in all their professional dealings. Failure to do so can result in severe consequences, including the loss of their license to practice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, RESPONDENT., AC No. 5325, February 09, 2016

December 19, 2016