Disbarred for gross misconduct

Case law instructs that if a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is established. The fact that a client transacted with counsel, the latter belated and unilateral classification of her acts as being limited to those of a real estate broker cannot be upheld. Respondent publicly held herself as a lawyer and the mere fact that she also donned the hat of a real estate broker did not divest her of the responsibilities attendant to the legal profession. The legal profession demands of attorneys an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interests of their clients. In the instant case, instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject property of her clients, she willfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person. This act of counsel constitute gross misconduct which warrant disbarment (A.C. No.4945, October 8, 2013).

a compassionate court

The Court is not only a court of law and justice, but also a court of compassion. The Court would be a mindless tyrant otherwise. The Court does not also sit on a throne of vindictiveness, for its seat is always placed under the inspiring aegis of that grand lady in a flowing robe who wears the mythical blindfold that has symbolized through the ages of man that enduring quality of objectivity and fairness, and who wields the balance that has evinced the highest sense of justice for all regardless of their station in life. This reiteration assures all judicial officials and personnel that the Court is not an uncaring overlord that would be unmindful of their fealty to their oaths and of their dedication to their work. For as long as they act efficiently to the best of their human abilities, and for as long as they conduct themselves well in the service of our Country and People, the Court shall always be considerate and compassionate towards them (A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320).

Suspension from the practice of law

The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and devote his full attention, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation (A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013).

Transactions involving Agri Land

Not every sale or transfer of Agricultural Land would warrant DAR Adjudication Board's jurisdiction. When a suit does not involve an agrarian dispute it does not fall under the jurisdiction of DARAB. There must be a tenancy relationship between the party litigants or, the controversy must relate to "tenurial arrangements" for the  DARAB to validly take cognizance of the controversy. An allegation to declare null and void a certain sale involving an agricultural land does not ipso facto make the case an agrarian dispute. While the Court recognizes the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and transfer of agricultural lands, the DARAB's jurisdiction over such dispute is limited by the qualification that the land involved is under the administration and disposition of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank or, under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws (DARPO, Laguna v. Paramount Holdings-Equities, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 176838. June 13, 2013).

Judicial Affidavit in place of Direct Testimonies

The bottleneck in our Judicial System in hearing and deciding cases is at the witness stand. This is so because courts can hear no more than one witness at a given time. To partly solve this problem, the 2012 Judicial Affidavit Rule directs the parties to use judicial affidavits of witnesses in place of their direct testimonies. This change has cut down the time needed for hearing cases by two-thirds, since the examination of witnesses normally consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross. Some think that the use of judicial affidavit impairs the court's opportunity to observe the demeanor of witness while he testifies on direct examination. But true demeanor usually will not show when the witness responds to closely controlled questions from a friendly lawyer who interviewed him before trial. It is during cross examination, when the witness has to answer questions that he has not prepared for, that his true demeanor will show.