CASE 2019-0036: ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. VS. ATTY. RESTITUTO S. MENDOZA (A.C. NO. 8608. OCTOBER 16, 2019, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISBARMENT; SUSPENSION; LAWYER-CLIENT RELATION; CONFIDENTIALITY) (BRIEF TITLE: ADELFA PROPERTIES VS ATTY MENDOZA)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RULE?

THAT THE LAWYER MUST KEEP INVIOLATE HIS CLIENT’S SECRETS OR CONFIDENCE. SUCH DUTY MUST BE OBSERVED EVEN AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AND EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE CLIENT.

 WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF A LAWYER?

ATTY. MENDOZA ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE INTERVIEWED BY MEDIA IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LABOR CASE AGAINST COMPLAINANT. IS THIS IMPROPER?

YES, IT IS NOT PROPER UNDER THE FOLLOWING RULE.

CAN CLIENT REVEAL CONFIDENCES OR SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT?

NO EXCEPT AS STATED IN THE RULES TO WIT:

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2019-0036-Adelfa Properties, Inc. Vs. Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0035: EDGAR M. RICO VS. ATTYS. JOSE R. MADRAZO, JR., ET AL. (A.C. NO. 7231. OCTOBER 1, 2019, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: NOTARIAL LAW AND RULES) (BRIEF TITLE: RICO VS ATTY MADRAZO ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

RESPONDENT NOTARY PUBLIC RAISED THE DEFENCE THAT HE DELEGATED THE NOTARIAL WORK TO HIS SECRETARY AND THUS THE ERRORS. IS THIS DEFENSE VALID?

NO BECAUSE A LAWYER SHOULD NOT DELEGATE THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY TASK TO SOMEONE NOT QUALIFIED TO PERFORM IT.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2019-0035-Edgar M. Rico Vs. Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., et al. 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0033: BDO LIFE ASSURANCE, INC. VS. ATTY. EMERSON U. PALAD (G.R. NO. 237845. OCTOBER 16, 2019, REYES A. JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: PROBABLE CAUSE, CONSPIRACY) (BRIEF TITLE: BDO VS ATTY PALAD)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ATTY PALAD WAS PRESENT DURING THE ENTRAPMENT. IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT ATTY PALAD WAS IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE CULPRITS?

NO BECAUSE TO HOLD HIM LIABLE AS CONSPIRATOR HE MUST PERFORM AN OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY. MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THERE MUST BE COOPERATION AND AGREEMENT TO COOPERATE ON HIS PART.

PROSECUTION SAYS PALAD MUST PROVE HIS INNOCENCE DURING TRIAL. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: TO SECURE THE INNOCENT FROM HASTY, MALICIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE PROSECUTION.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2019-0033-BDO Life Assurance, Inc. Vs. Atty. Emerson U. Palad

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX