FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12765. October 6, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4655]
TEODORO N. CAMACHO IV, complainant,vs. ATTY. OMAR B. FRANCISCO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12765 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4655] — Teodoro N. Camacho IV v. Atty. Omar B. Francisco
The Case
In his complaint 1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), complainant Teodoro N. Camacho IV sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Omar B. Francisco for violation of Canons 1.01, 2.03, 3.01, 7.01 & 7.03, 10.01, 12.02, and 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He essentially alleged:
1) On August 11, 2014, respondent filed NPS No. IV-03-INV-14H-2489 2 before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, accusing him (complainant) of estafa under Article 315 (2) (A) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On September 3, 2014, respondent followed up with two (2) more criminal complaints: NPS No. IV-03-INV-141-2768 3 for violation of Sections 5, 20, and 30 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957), 4 the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree, and NPS No. IV-03-INV-141-2769 5 for violation of Section 25 of the same law. As it was, however, respondent did not disclose the pendency of NPS No. IV-03-INV-14H-2489 in the investigation data forms accompanying the two (2) subsequent complaints. Thus, respondent engaged in forum shopping via multiplicity of suits, as well as dishonest conduct, in violation of Canons 1.01, 6 7.01, 7 10.01, 8 and 12.02 9 of the CPR;
2) Respondent arranged a meeting with him on May 29, 2015, on the pretext of peacefully resolving the pending cases. But it was merely a ruse to serve warrants of arrest 10 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 23, Trece Martires, Cavite in connection with the afore-stated criminal complaints. Such deception was in violation of Canon 3.01 11 of the CPR;
3) Respondent caused the publication of an article about his arrest in both print and digital editions of People's Tonight. This was intended to arouse public opinion against him and promote respondent's law practice, in violation of Canons 1.01 and 2.03 12 of the CPR;
4) On June 2, 2011, June 23, 2011, and July 4, 2011, online blogger "Ang Brigade" revealed that respondent engaged in disreputable activities and paid police authorities to harass its directors, thus:
June 2, 2011 13
Atty. Omar, ugok?
Ako lang ay nagtataka, ano ba ibig sabihin ng ugok?
Di ko kasi naintindihan ang kwento ng isang reklamador na bumisita kanina dito sa aking tiam lai (sic).
Sabi niya, ugok daw itong si Omar. Tinanong ko naman kung bakit.
Ang sabi niya, noon daw mga sumunod na meeting sa Brigade pagkatapos ng pagkakasira, pagkakawasak, pagkakapaling at pagkakabingkong ng pinto ng Board Room sa Brigade, lagi na daw may mga pulis na nagbabantay sa baba ng Brigade at bumibilang ng hindi bababa sa sampu!
Ako naman ay dagliang tumawag sa station commander ng presinto na nakakasakop sa Brigade, at aking napag[-]alaman na napalitan na pala ang hepe dun[,] na siyang nakaupo ng mga panahon na iyon. Ngunit ako naman ay nakakuha ng kumpirmasyon na nagpadala nga daw sila ng mga pulis sa Brigade para magbantay dahil may mga "bandido" daw na baka manggulo.
Aking tinanong kung normal ba na magpadala ng ganito kadaming pulis para sa mga ganung "issue." Ang sagot ay hindi. Tinanong ko kung bakit ganun, ang sabi sakin ay dahil daw taga PLEB ang nagrequest. Aking tinanong kung sino, sagot ay si ATTY. OMAR FRANCISCO!
Aba, di ba tila ginagamit ni Kuyang Omar ang kaniyang impluwensya upang mangharass ng mga direktor ng Brigade?
At eto pa, may larawan na ipinakita sa akin, na kuha umano ng isa sa mga media na andun noong isang Board Meeting[,] kung saan ipinapakita na inaabutan ng pera ni Water Ludy si Omar Francisco sa taas, sa labas ng Board room. Ang sumunod na larawan na ipinakita sa akin ay si Atty. Omar kausap ang isang sarhento, na tila may inaabot na mukhang mga nakatuping pera sa tabi ng patrol ng mga pulis na nakaparada sa baba lamang ng Brigade.
Totoo na hindi mapapatunayan na inabutan nga ni Omar Francisco ng pera ang mga pulis na idinaan kay Sarge, ng pera na galing kay Water Ludy, pero ang mga larawan na nakita ko[,] ay sa palagay ko[,]sapat na upang bigyan ng kaukulang pagdududa ang pagkatao at pagka-abogado ni Omar.
Kung ganitong mga klaseng abogado ang meron sa pinas (sic), saan na lang tayo pupulutin neto. (sic) Ang mga ganitong "actuation" ng isang opisyal ng hukuman ay nagpapalala at naglalagay sa alanganin[,] sa dignidad at integridad ng kanilang propesyon.
No wonder laging narereklamo sa IBP itong si Kuyang Omar, dahil sa kaniyang mga dirty games.
Siguraduhin lang sana niya na safeguard ang kaniyang gamit panghugas dahil sa safeguard, kills 99.9% of germs!
June 23, 2011 14
Atty. Omar Francisco, nakuryente?!
Gaano katotoo ang tsismis na nasagap ng aking mga bugwit na kasapi ng kilusang "karpintero" na minsan daw na magkaron ng "fellowship" ang kanilang "inn" sa isang out-of-town na lugar ay "nakuryente" umano itong ating Achi na si Atty. OMAR Francisco?
Sa mga Kuyang (sic) na nagbabasa nito[,] alam naman natin kung ano ang nagaganap sa tuwing tayo'y may out-of-town "fellowship." Di ba't bumabaha ng "booze" at naglalakihan at nagkalat ang mga "boobs"?
Isang morenang gerlaluh (sic) umano ang natipuhan nitong si Atty. Omar Francisco sa naturang "fellowship" at ito ay kaniyang dinala sa isang pribadong lugar kung saan dalawa lamang silang "nag[-]usap."
Ilang araw umano ang nakalipas ng matiyempuhan ng ilang kasama si Atty. Omar sa "corridors of power" malapit sa [L]agusnilad at ito ay kanilang kinamusta. Kamusta daw yung gerlaluh (sic) na "kinausap" nito.
Sagot daw ni Omar sa kanila, "Ayos pare!] Sobrang galing! Sobrang sarap! Eto nga, tatlong araw na, nilalabasan pa ko!"
Nyahahaha. . . . (sic) Nakuryente daw itong si Aching Omar Francisco!
Totoo ba ito o tayo ang nakuryente sa balitang tsismis!?
July 4, 2011 15
Atty. Omar Francisco, bakit ka pikon?
Sa isang harapan kaninang umaga, hindi maitago ni Kuyang Omara (sic) ang kaniyang pagkapikon sa blog na ito.
Binabanatan daw ang kaniyang pagkatao, pagkalalake[,] at pagka-abogado. Pati pamilya daw niya ay apektado na sa mga nakalathala sa blog na ito.
Halos manginig ang kaniyang buong katawan sa galit, di ko tuloy mapigilang ma[-]imagine kung ganito din ba siya manginig pag nasa rurok na ng tagumpay.
Bwahaha[!]
Ako lamang ay nagtataka, kung talagang siksik-liglig-umaapaw na ang iyong pagkabanas, bakit di mo ituro kung sino ang Blogger?
Di ba pinagyayabang ng katandem mo na si Beegee na kilala na ninyo kung sino at alam na ninyo kung san nakatira?
Bakit puro ka ngawa at di mo aksyunan. Tila binigyang katotohanan niyo ang haka-haka ng mga tagasubaybay ng lathalang ito na kayong tandem na OMGee (sic) ay talaga naming parehong Inutil!
Apektado ba kamo ang inyong pamilya? Aba, e bago ka kasi magsalita sa publiko, magisip ka muna. Di ba sa mga bibig mo mismo nanggagaling (sic) na wala ka pakialam sa misis mo? Di ba sa mga umpukan pag may fellowship ay lagi mo ito pinagyayabang?
Nakakapagtaka lang na "concerned" ka sa pamilya mo e ikaw mismo di ba kinakahiya mo esmi (sic) mo? Bakit di mo gayahin si Atty. Bernard na talaga namang isang ulirang asawa at ama na proud na proud sa kaniyang kabiyak kahit na ito ay "chubby." Pinagtatanggol pa nga ni Beegee ang kaniyang asawa sa pagsasabing "kakapanganak lang kasi" o "baby fats lang yun."
Pati "orgasm" mo na umabot na ng ilang araw ay tila pinagyayabang mo pa na parang ito ay medalya ng kagitingan. Dapat kasi pag ganun silent ka na lang. Sabi nga ng isang tagasubaybay, baka daw front mo lang yun na para sabihing ikaw ay "macho" para sabihin na kumakana ka din. E berde naman din daw pala ang dugo mo.
Emphasis on DAW (sic) ha. Di ko sinabi yun. Feed Jang sakin. :) (sic)
Ang nakakatawa sa lahat, iyong sinabi na di ka makalog-in dito at gustong[-]gusto mo sumabat pero pinipigilan ng admin ang pagsign in niyo.
Kung di ka ba naman isa't-kalahating tanga, bakit mo sisisihin ang admin kung di ka marunong magcomputer!? Walang pinipigilan dito at pinapayagan ang malayang pamamahayag dito!
Bat di mo tanong si ChicChic na kasama mong tuta ni Mr. UBE. Kung siya nga nakakapost e. Paturo ka kasi. Hindi nakakahiyang magtanong kung paano kung di mo alam.
Wag masyado mayabang.
Alalahanin, ang buhay ay parang gulong. Minsan sa taas, minsan sa baba.
Minsan — FLAT!
Based on these blogs, respondent is not morally fit to continue in the practice of law.
In his Answer, 16 respondent riposted that he did not deliberately conceal the pendency of the estafa case as he merely failed to edit the accompanying investigation data forms of the two (2) complaints for violation of PD 957 filed on September 3, 2014.
He was not aware of any warrant of arrest issued against complainant when he met with him on May 29, 2015; he had no connection with police authorities contrary to complainant's insinuation. He did not cause the publication of an article about complainant's arrest either. As for the allegations in the online blogs, these were false and malicious.
Truth be told, all the charges against him were misleading and unsubstantiated; the case was merely filed to malign his person, harass and overwhelm him, and be used as leverage in the criminal cases against complainant.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD
By Report and Recommendation 17 dated October 19, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano recommended that respondent be reprimanded, thus:
Recommendation:
It is most respectfully recommended that in the first complaint, Atty. Omar Francisco be reprimanded and be reminded that he should be careful in the preparation of Investigation Data Form so that the truth will be reflected. The other complaints should be dismissed.
Mr. Teodoro Camacho should be reminded that his woes are his own making. He sold subdivision lots when he is not in a position to deliver the titles to buyers who have fully paid.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
The Investigating Commissioner ruled that respondent was not truthful in the investigation data forms of the two (2) complaints for violation of PD 957 when he answered "no" to the query on whether there was already a related case filed before the prosecutor's office; he should have revealed the pendency of the estafa case he earlier filed against complainant on August 11, 2014. For his dishonesty, a reprimand was proper.
The rest of the charges against respondent were nevertheless dismissed. First, respondent was simply fulfilling his sworn duties when he assisted the authorities in implementing the warrant of arrest against complainant. At any rate, complainant only had himself to blame for his arrest — he sold subdivision lots though he was not in a position to deliver their titles to buyers who have fully paid. Second, complainant failed to establish that respondent had any influence over the news reporter who wrote the article on his arrest. Finally, the derogatory blogs against respondent were pure hearsay and devoid of probative value.
Recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors (BOG)
Under Resolution 18 dated April 20, 2017, the IBP-BOG adopted the factual findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. It subsequently denied respondent's motion for partial reconsideration 19 by Resolution 20 dated October 5, 2018.
On January 30, 2020, the IBP transmitted the case records to the Court since its ruling is merely recommendatory in nature and does not attain finality without the Court's imprimatur.
Our Ruling
On respondent's alleged forum
a. Respondent did not engage inviamultiplicity of suits
Forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. 21 It requires: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. 22
In TADI v. Atty. Solilapsi, 23 the Court stated that "the essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment." 24 Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. 25 An important factor in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.
Here, respondent filed two (2) criminal cases against complainant on September 3, 2014: NPS No. IV-03-INV-141-2768 for violation of Sections 5, 20, and 30 of PD 957 and NPS No. IV-03-INV-141-2769 for violation of Section 25 of the same law. As it was, however, he had earlier filed NPS No. IV-03-INV-14H-2489 against complainant for estafa under Article 315 (2) (A) of the RPC on August 11, 2014. Thus, complainant claims respondent is guilty of forum shopping via multiplicity of suits.
The argument fails to persuade.
The Court has already ruled in Facilities, Incorporated v. Lopez, 26 that a suit for violation of PD 957 is independent from any other remedy granted under existing laws, including the RPC, thus:
Contrary to Lopez's stance, a suit for the violation of P.D. No. 957 is independent from whatever remedy granted under the MOA, i.e., rescission of the Contract to Sell, or under existing laws, which obviously includes the provisions of the RPC.
A perusal of P.D. No. 957 reveals that a violation of its provisions may be the subject of a criminal action, and not merely limited to a civil remedy. The decree expressly recognizes that the aggrieved party may avail of the remedies provided not only in P.D. No. 957, but also under existing laws. The decree, states, thus:
Section 41. Other remedies. — The rights and remedies provided in this Decree shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may be available under existing laws. (Emphasis and italics ours)
Notably, nowhere in the aforecited provision nor in the full text of P.D. No. 957, does it say that the aggrieved party is barred from filing a criminal complaint under P.D. No. 957 and under the RPC. Also, it is clear that the MOA did not limit the remedy to rescission in case of breach by PPDC. This Court cannot merely supply material stipulations to a contract, so as to favor one party against the other pertaining to the remedies available to each of them. Indeed, "[w]hen the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations governs."
Corollarily, Lopez may likewise be held criminally liable under the RPC. Paragraph 1, Article 316 of the RPC penalizes a person who pretends to be the owner of a real property and sells the same x x x (Emphases and italics supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Verily, Section 41 of PD 957 itself allows complainant to be criminally charged under the RPC, independent and separate from criminal charges under PD 957. It cannot, therefore, be said that respondent was guilty of forum shopping via multiplicity of suits when he pursued remedies against complainant under both laws.
So must it be.
b. Respondent is not guilty of
Under Rule 1.01, CPR, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Dishonesty is defined as the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." 27 Clearly, dishonesty is a matter of intention.
Here, complainant charged respondent with dishonesty for failure to disclose in the investigation data forms of the two (2) criminal cases for violation of PD 957 that he earlier filed a related criminal case for estafa against complainant. Both the IBP-CBD and IBP-BOG gave credence to this allegation and accordingly held respondent liable for dishonesty.
We do not agree.
We find that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of respondent to conceal the pendency of the prior estafa case filed. As respondent explained in his answer, he used a template investigation data form from his computer and simply forgot to edit the portion where the disclosure should have been made. This is not dishonesty.
Respondent's "untruthfulness" was nothing more than inadvertence. For although respondent was a bit careless, there is no evidence that his omission was specifically intended to hide the truth and cause complainant to suffer any damage or prejudice. Indeed, respondent had no reason to conceal the estafa case since as earlier explained, its pendency will not result in the dismissal of the subsequent cases on the ground of forum shopping.
Under these circumstances, respondent should simply be admonished to be more cautious and prudent in reviewing his pleadings prior to filing them before the proper government agencies.
Other charges are unsubstantiated
As for the other charges, they should be dismissed for being baseless and devoid of substance.
First. Complainant accused respondent of deceiving him in order to serve warrants of arrest. This bare and unsubstantiated allegation, however, merits no consideration. At any rate, under Section 10, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many persons as he or she deems necessary to assist him or her in effecting an arrest, thus:
Section 10. Officer may summon assistance. — An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned by an officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. (10a)
Too, it is respondent's duty under Rule 12.01, CPR to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice:
CANON 12 — A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.01 — A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce, and the order of its profference. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.
Respondent merely acted in accordance with these provisions when he assisted in complainant's arrest.
Second. It does not appear that respondent, in any way, influenced the writer of People's Tonight to publish an article about complainant's arrest and promote his (respondent's) law practice. In fact, a perusal of the news item 28 would reveal that it merely narrated the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest and did not advertise nor exalt respondent's legal abilities, viz.:
Realty firm prexy nabbed for failure to deliver lot titles to clients
REALTY company President was arrested by operatives of the Pasig City police for alleged failure to deliver the titles to lots bought by its clients.
"Atty. Omar Francisco, legal counsel for the complainants, spouses Marwan and Evelyn Abouras, said that sometime in 2002, they bought several subdivision lots at the St. Augustine Homes in General Trias, Cavite. Said subdivision is owned and developed by LGTM Corp."
xxx xxx xxx
Atty. Francisco of the Francisco Peralta-Francisco & Partners law firm said that despite full payments made by his clients for several lots as early as 2005 and a number of formal demands for the past several years, LGTM Corp. failed to deliver the titles for the said lots and to fully complete the land development and delivery of the common areas and promised amenities.
Worse, he said, even the perimeter walls which were supposed to provide security in the subdivision premises were never constructed.
According to Atty. Francisco, "the LGTM Corp. even allowed the main road of the subdivision to serve as an access road for certain tenants and squatters living in a lot adjacent to the St. Agustine Subdivision, thereby compromising the security of my clients and other legitimate lot owners residing therein and causing disturbance of peace and several robbery and theft incidents within the said subdivision."
Owing to all these, the complainants filed criminal cases for estafa and violation of PD 957 (HLURB regulations) against Camacho and other officers and board members of the said developer, he added.
Atty. Francisco lauded the said Pasig police officers for a job well done.
xxx xxx xxx
Finally. Relative to respondent's supposed misconduct, suffice it to state that online articles and blogs are hearsay evidence, twice removed. 29 Not only are they inadmissible, but also without any probative value at all whether objected to or not, 30 unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. Hence, the charges for misconduct should also be dismissed.
Truth be told, the Court believes that the present complaint is nothing more than an attempt to vex, harass and humiliate respondent as well as to get even with him for filing three (3) criminal cases against complainant and assisting in the latter's arrest. In Seares, Jr. v. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, 31 we ruled that such an ill-motivated bid to disbar respondent trifles with the Court's esteem for the members of the Bar who form one of the solid pillars of Justice in our land. We cannot tolerate it because attorneys are officers of the Court who are placed under our supervision and control due to the law imposing upon them peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities. 32 The Court exists in a symbiotic environment with them where their duty to defend the courts is reciprocated by ours shielding them from vindictive individuals who are deterred by nothing just to strip them of their privilege to practice law.
In De Leon v. Castelo, 33 the Court underscored the need to shield attorneys as officers of the Court from the mindless assaults intended to vex or harass them in their performance of duty, stating:
According to Justice Cardozo, "x x x the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored."
A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
In an age of fake news, trolls, and alternative facts and the ease by which this information is used in any form of social media, without regard for the truth and the damage it may cause, the Court will not turn the other cheek but will stand side by side with the members of the Bar. It will not tolerate unwarranted and malicious assaults against their honor and reputation. The brazen and calculated manner by which complainant used these supposed online articles and blogs to sully the reputation of a member of the Bar is not only a cause for alarm but an ever-present danger that all of us in the profession will most definitely encounter now and in the future. Surely, we cannot let this pass.
Thus, the Court issues a stern rebuke to complainant for filing an unfounded complaint against respondent based on derogatory online blogs, with a stern warning that similar actions shall be dealt with more severely as indirect contempt of Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the complaint against respondent ATTY. OMAR B. FRANCISCO is DISMISSED. Respondent is nevertheless ADMONISHED to be more cautious and prudent in reviewing his pleadings prior to filing them before the proper government institutions.
Meanwhile, the Court issues a STERN REBUKE to complainant Teodoro N. Camacho IV for filing an unfounded complaint against respondent based on derogatory online blogs WITH A STERN WARNING that a repetition of a similar action shall be dealt with more severely as indirect contempt of Court.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-19.
2.Id. at 19-25.
3.Id. at 29-37.
4. Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, signed on July 12, 1976.
Section 5.License to sell. — Such owner or dealer to whom has been issued a registration certificate shall not, however, be authorized to sell any subdivision lot or condominium unit in the registered project unless he shall have first obtained a license to sell the project within two weeks from the registration of such project.
The Authority, upon proper application therefor, shall issue to such owner or dealer of a registered project a license to sell the project if, after an examination of the registration statement filed by said owner or dealer and all the pertinent documents attached thereto, he is convinced that the owner or dealer is of good repute, that his business is financially stable, and that the proposed sale of the subdivision lots or condominium units to the public would not be fraudulent.
Section 20.Time of Completion. — Every owner or developer shall construct and provide the facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development, including water supply and lighting facilities, which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision or condominium plans, brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any form of advertisement, within one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision or condominium project or such other period of time as may be fixed by the Authority.
Section 30.Organization of Homeowners Association. — The owner or developer of a subdivision project or condominium project shall initiate the organization of a homeowners association among the buyers and residents of the projects for the purpose of promoting and protecting their mutual interest and assist in their community development.
5.Rollo, pp. 38-44.
6. CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
7. CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.01 — A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
8. 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 misled by any artifice.
9. CANON 12 — A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.02 — A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
10. Criminal Case Nos. TMCR-256-15 to TMCR-259-15 for Violation of Sec. 5, Sec. 30, Sec. 25 and Sec. 20 of PD 957; TMCR-299-15 to TMCR-302-15 for Violation of Secs. 25, 20, 30 and 5 of PD No. 957; and TMZ-252-15 to TMCR-255-15 for Violation of Estafa under Article 315, Par. 2 (A) of the RPC, rollo, pp. 87-89.
11. CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 — A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
12. CANON 2 — A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.03 — A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
13. http://brigade-reformist.blogspot.com/2011/06/atty-omar-ugok.html <Accessed October 2, 2021, 9:01 am>.
14. http://brigade-reformist.blogspot.com/2011/06/atty-omar-francisco-nakuryente.html <Accessed October 2, 2021, 9:01 am>.
15. http://brigade-reformist.blogspot.com/2011/07/atty-omar-francisco-bakit-ka-pikon.html <Accessed October 2, 2021, 9:01 am>.
16.Rollo, pp. 58-72.
17. Report and Recommendation.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20. Notice of Resolution issued by Integrated Bar of the Philippines Assistant National Secretary, Atty. Jason Rudolf C. Arteche.
21. See TADI v. Atty. Solilapsi, 442 Phil. 499, 508 (2002), citing Quinsay v. Court of Appeals, 393 Phil. 838, (2000); Heirs of Victorina Motus Penaverde v. Heirs of Mariano Penaverde, 397 Phil. 925, 931 (2000); Ayala Land, Inc. v. Valisno, 381 Phil. 518, 528 (2000); Melo v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 204, 211 (1999).
22.Id., citing Republic v. Carmel Development, Inc., 427 Phil. 723, 739 (2002); Heirs of Victorina Motus Penaverde v. Heirs of Mariano Penaverde; 397 Phil. 925, 931 (2000); Melo v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 204, 211 (1999), citing Valencia v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 590, 603 (1996); Employees' Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 510, 516-517 (1996); Buan v. Lopez, Jr., 229 Phil. 65, 69-70 (1986).
23.Id.
24.Id., citing Executive Secretary v. Gordon, 359 Phil. 266, 271 (1998).
25. See Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. NLRC, 296-A Phil. 64, 72 (1993).
26. 825 Phil. 663, 667 (2018).
27. See Sierra v. Javier, A.C. No. 10864 (Notice), January 13, 2016.
28.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
29. See Feria v. CA, 382 Phil. 412, 423 (2000), citing State Prosecutors v. Muro, 321 Phil. 474, 477 (1995), citing 3 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, 2d. ed., Sec. 1084.
30.Id.
31. See Seares, Jr. v. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, 698 Phil. 596, 608 (2012).
32.Id., citing Garcia v. Lopez, 558 Phil. 1, 5 (2007).
33. 654 Phil. 224, 239-240 (2011).