FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7038. September 29, 2021.]
SPOUSES CELSO AND ELVIRA ONDE, complainants, vs. ATTY. LUZMINDO BESARIO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7038 (Spouses Celso and Elvira Onde v. Atty. Luzmindo Besario)
Antecedents
On January 13, 2006, Spouses Celso L. Onde and Elvira A. Onde (complainants) charged Atty. Luzmindo Besario (respondent) before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) with violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 1 In their verified Letter-Complaint, 2 complainants essentially alleged:
They owned several apartments located at 1416 Paciencia Compound, Tipolo, Mandaue City. They leased out these apartments to different tenants, including respondent. His contract of lease was for one (1) year from April 28, 2004 to April 28, 2005 and for a monthly rent of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). 3
During respondent's stay in the leased premises, however, they received several complaints from their other tenants that respondent was causing trouble and disturbance in the neighborhood. He and his friends would always have a drinking spree and loudly sing videoke songs until the wee hours of the night. More, whenever he gets drunk, he would step out and indiscriminately fire his gun in the air. There was one incident when he shouted "Kinsay isog ninyo dire, kinsay nasuko nako, ari lang!" ("Who is brave here? Who is mad at me? Come here!''), and then wielded his gun, and fired shots in the air. 4
When respondent's lease contract expired, they agreed to extend his lease for another sixty (60) days or until June 28, 2005 to give him time to look for a new place to stay. But despite the lapse of the extension, respondent did not leave the apartment and even refused to pay the monthly rent starting September 2005 onward. They sent him several demands but the same went unheeded. 5
On November 2, 2005, around six o'clock in the evening, they went to respondent's apartment to serve him a final demand letter. Celso parked their car at the back of the apartment. He stayed in the car while Elvira walked to the front door. She saw respondent together with three (3) others having a drinking session while singing videoke songs. When one of respondent's companions approached her, she gave him the demand letter which he handed over to respondent. After reading the letter, respondent walked toward her, menacingly stared at her, tore the demand letter, and blurted "UNSA PAPAHAWON KO NIMO KARON, PATYON TAKA, PATYON TAKA!" 6 ("What? Are you evicting me now? I will kill you! I will kill you!"). 7 Terrified, she hurriedly picked up the torn demand letter and rushed toward the car while respondent continued blurting his threats. 8 Celso saw his wife looking horrified as she rushed toward him. She immediately boarded the car and asked him to drive away. 9
As Celso started to drive out of the parking area, he saw respondent and one of his companions blocking the compound road. Respondent banged the front hood shouting "ASA MAS CELSO?" ("Where is Celso?"). Celso steered away and just continued to drive out. As he glanced at the rear view mirror though, he saw respondent and his companion throwing hard objects at the car which consequently got hit at the back. Out of fear, Celso sped away. 10 He and his wife then reported the incident to the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Station 2, Barangay Subangdaku, Mandaue City. 11
Respondent's acts, including his threat to kill Elvira amounted to immoral conduct which rendered him unfit to remain as member of the Bar. 12
Complainants submitted in evidence their sworn affidavits, 13 respondent's lease contract, 14 the torn demand letter, 15 PNP Certification of police blotter, 16 petition to evict respondent signed by his neighbors, 17 and PNP Certification that respondent did not have a license to possess any firearm. 18
On March 13, 2006, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint within ten (10) days from notice. 19
Meanwhile, on July 11, 2006, Elvira filed a Supplemental Affidavit before the OBC. She stated therein that she had been experiencing anxiety and sleepless nights ever since the November 2, 2005 incident. Her psychological pain prompted her to seek professional help from a psychiatrist who confirmed she was suffering from trauma. An internal medicine specialist also diagnosed her with insomnia and acute gastritis. 20
Respondent had disrespected the society and the courts when he failed to answer not only the present disbarment complaint, but also the ejectment complaint they filed against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Mandaue City. Worse, after receiving the MTCC's notice to vacate and pay, 21 he surreptitiously left the premises without paying his obligations, including his electric bills for three (3) months. 22 Thus, they had no choice but to pay his bills to avoid a disconnection.
Elvira, too, submitted in evidence the medical certificates issued by her doctors, 23 the MTCC-Mandaue City Decision 24 dated April 24, 2006, the Statement of Account from Visayan Electric Co., Inc., 25 and copy of check no. 2363455 they paid to the Visayan Electric Co., Inc. 26
On April 11, 2007, the Court gave respondent ten (10) days from notice to show cause why he had not filed his answer and to file the required answer within the same period. 27 On August 21, 2007, after three (3) motions for extension, 28 respondent finally submitted his Explanation and Comment. 29 Albeit late, the Court accepted his Explanation and Comment and treated it as sufficient compliance with its directive. 30
In his Explanation and Comment, 31 respondent claimed to be a polio victim who had no capacity to threaten complainants. He then turned the tables on Celso, accusing the latter of challenging him to a fistfight. He said that on that occasion, Celso, accompanied by two (2) police officers, allegedly cut off his electric connection to force him to leave the apartment. 32 Consequently, he (respondent) got forced to hire individuals to fetch water for him from a nearby deep well. 33
As for the alleged complaints of his neighbors, complainants merely fabricated them. He never fired a gun as he did not own any firearm. 34
On January 21, 2008, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records. 35
Proceedings Before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
To start off, the IBP-CBD requested the parties to attend a mandatory conference on May 5, 2008. 36 Complainants, nonetheless, asked that the venue be moved to the IBP-Cebu City Chapter considering that the parties both resided in Mandaue City. 37 Per Order dated May 5, 2008, the IBP-CBD granted the motion and referred the case to the IBP-Cebu City Chapter. 38 But the Court had never since heard from the IBP-Cebu City Chapter even after eight (8) years later. Hence, by Resolution 39 dated August 22, 2016, the Court directed the IBP to submit its status report on the case.
The IBP complied per its Status Report 40 dated January 26, 2017. It explained that the IBP-CBD had actually required the parties to attend a mandatory conference before it, but they never did, both during the first and second settings. 41 Consequently, the mandatory conference was ordered terminated, and the parties, directed to file their respective position papers instead. 42 But still, none of them complied, thus, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner of
In his Report and Recommendation 43 dated December 5, 2017, Investigating Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera found respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, in relation to Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR; and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Commissioner Antiquiera found that complainants' positive statements, the police blotter report, and the petition signed by the tenants of the adjoining apartments, clearly established that respondent behaved in a scandalous manner, to the discredit of the legal profession. His threat to kill Elvira was highly scandalous and condemnable. Too, respondent's claim that he is a polio victim, even if true, does not mean he was innocent of the acts complained of. His bare denial cannot prevail over complainants' positive assertions and the supporting documents attached to the complaint. 44
Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG)
Per Resolution 45 dated August 29, 2018, the IBP-BOG approved and adopted the recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Antiquiera.
Under Resolution 46 dated July 25, 2020, the IBP-BOG denied respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Our Ruling
The Court adopts the IBP-BOG's factual findings and legal conclusion but modifies the penalty.
Membership in the Bar imposes upon lawyers certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must always conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Thus, they are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. 47 A lawyer's duty to comport one's self in a professional and respectful manner is not only confined to professional engagements but extends to his or her personal life. 48 This principle is embodied in Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR, viz.:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Here, respondent clearly did not meet the lofty standard reposed on him as a member of the Bar. Consider:
First. It is undisputed that respondent reneged on his contractual obligation with complainants. Despite complainants' repeated demands, he refused to vacate the leased apartment and pay his monthly rent. This prompted complainants to file an ejectment suit against him before the MTCC-Mandaue City. And when the trial court ordered him to pay his obligation and vacate the premises, he surreptitiously left, evading payment and leaving behind overdue electric bills for three (3) months. 49 Consequently, complainants had no choice but to pay these bills to avoid electrical disconnection. 50
Notably, complainants were able to fully substantiate their claim by presenting respondent's lease contract with them, 51 their demand letter, 52 his unpaid electric bills, 53 and the MTCC Decision 54 itself finding that respondent unjustifiably refused to honor his contractual obligation under his lease contract with complainants.
In Cham v. Paita-Moya, 55 the Court held that unpaid rent and electric bills constitute "just debts" and a lawyer's willful failure to pay them demonstrates deceitful conduct, thus:
Having incurred just debts, respondent had the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them when they became due. Respondent should have complied with just contractual obligations, and acted fairly and adhered to high ethical standards to preserve the court's integrity, since she is an employee thereof. Indeed, when respondent backtracked on her duty to pay her debts, such act already constituted a ground for administrative sanction.
As stated, here, respondent surreptitiously left the apartment beyond the extension given him in order to evade his contractual obligation under the lease contract. In so doing, he is liable for deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, viz.:
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.
In Vda. Francisco v. Real, 56 Atty. Real continuously occupied Francisco's property without paying rent and even after Francisco already sued him before the MTCC. He ignored all demands for payment and even refused to participate in the court proceedings. He only vacated the leased premises one (1) year after the court issued a writ of execution and after Francisco had already filed a disbarment complaint against him. The Court held that Atty. Real's acts constituted gross misconduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR.
As in Paita-Moya and Real, respondent's obstinate breach of his contractual obligation and inexplicable failure to act fairly in his dealings with the public constitute deceitful conduct which discredits the legal profession. His acts were not mere errors in judgment, but willful and wrongful. 57
Second. To recall, right after reading complainants' demand letter, respondent menacingly stared at Elvira, tore the demand letter, and blurted "UNSA PAPAHAWON KO NIMO KARON, PATYON TAKA, PATYON TAKA!" 58("What? Are you evicting me now? I will kill you! I will kill you!"). 59 Elvira got so terrified she hurriedly picked up the torn demand letter and rushed toward their car where Celso was waiting. While Elvira was running away, respondent did not stop with his litany of threats. 60 Celso saw his wife looking horrified and hurriedly walking toward him. Elvira immediately boarded the car and asked him to drive away. 61 But respondent's violent acts did not end there. He and his companion blocked the compound road, then he banged the front hood of the car blurting "ASA MAS CELSO?" ("Where is Celso?"). To avoid any altercation, Celso steered away from respondent and hurriedly drove out of the apartment compound. But as he did, respondent and his companion simultaneously threw hard objects at the car, hitting it in the process. 62
As it was, respondent's violent conduct and threat to kill Elvira took a toll on the latter's mental health and physical well-being. After her disturbing encounter with respondent, she suffered anxiety and sleepless nights, prompting her to seek professional help from a psychiatrist and an internal medicine specialist. The doctors found a direct link between the incident, specifically the violent reactions of respondent and his companions, and Elvira's trauma, insomnia, and acute gastritis, among other illnesses. 63
The Court keenly notes that the police blotter and medical certificates here were issued by disinterested parties. In Dap-og v. Mendez, 64 we stressed that absent any evidence that these documents were prepared in bad faith or are otherwise defective, as in this case, the presumption that they were independently prepared in good faith and should thus be given weight, stands.
In contrast, all respondent had to offer is a bare denial. He counters it was Celso, who, accompanied by two (2) police officers, went to the apartment, challenged him to a fistfight, then forcibly cut off his electric connection to force him to leave. 65 Respondent, too, claims he could not have threatened complainants since he has polio.
We are not convinced.
For one, it is rather absurd, nay, impossible for someone in the presence of authorities such as the police, to commit an offense, let alone, challenge another to a fistfight. Respondent's version is utterly incredulous and contrary to human experience.
For another, Investigating Commissioner Antiquiera correctly found that respondent's medical condition, if at all, does not mean he was innocent of the violent acts imputed on him. Records in fact showed that this is not the first time respondent exhibited such reprehensible conduct. Prior to his receipt of complainants' final demand letter to vacate, complainants had already been receiving several complaints from respondent's neighbors about his troublesome behavior and violent tendencies. He and his friends would always go on drinking sprees and loudly sing videoke songs until the wee hours of the night. And whenever respondent got drunk, he would step out of the apartment and indiscriminately fire his gun in the air. 66 One time, he challenged his neighbors "Kinsay isog ninyo dire, kinsay nasuko nako, ari lang!" ("Who is brave among you here? Who is mad at me? Just come here!") before he wielded his gun and fired shots in the air. 67 These repeated acts of violence and disturbance led respondent's neighbors, nineteen (19) of them, to file a petition to evict him from the apartment. 68
But respondent merely shrugged off these accusations and surprisingly denied them altogether. He asserted that these accusations are malicious, nay, fabricated. Even then, he failed to establish any ill motive that could have moved his neighbors to collectively petition his eviction from the neighborhood, other than to assert the truth. 69
In Lumbre v. Belleza, 70 the Court did not accept Atty. Belleza's bare denial and assertion that the complaint against him was merely concocted to harass him, absent any showing that the complainants therein were motivated by any ill-will. There, the Court gave credence to the complainants' allegation that Atty. Belleza went to their farm, then threatened and chased them away with his gun. The affidavits of witnesses and the psychiatric evaluation of complainants' doctor showing how they suffered from Atty. Belleza's threats were found to be credible pieces of evidence. The Court thus found that Atty. Belleza had transgressed ethical norms of conduct as a lawyer and wittingly turned himself into an instrument of terror. Atty. Belleza was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR.
Further, in Reyes v. Nieva, 71 the Court decreed that substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one administratively liable. Here, there is substantial evidence on record showing that respondent ignored his sworn duty to uphold the law and shy away from any conduct tending to degrade the law profession. He invariably displayed conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
Gonzalez v. Alcaraz72 ordained that "whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of acts showing their unworthiness as officers of the courts, as well as their lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor." Santiago v. Oca, 73 too, decreed that lawyers may be sanctioned for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, whether in his profession or private life because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege.
Indeed, possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and retain membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. 74
As sufficiently shown, respondent exhibited conduct in breach of his sworn duty as an officer of the court. He failed to live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in Rules 1.0175and 7.0376of the CPR.
Penalties
a. Violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR — Deceitful Conduct
In Paita-Moya, 77 respondent there was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the CPR for surreptitiously leaving her leased apartment without paying rent for four (4) months and electric bills for (2) months. She got suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month.
In Spouses Eustaquio v. Navales, 78 respondent there got suspended for six (6) months for violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02 for not paying rent for his apartment despite repeated demands and a subsequent settlement agreement with therein complainants. But when the Court found out that he continued practicing law despite his suspension, an additional six-month suspension was imposed on him.
In Real, 79 respondent there, too, would have only been suspended for six (6) months for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR for his acts of continuously occupying therein complainant's property without paying rent, ignoring all demands for payment, and refusal to participate in the collection case before the court. But having been disciplined thrice before by the Court, he was deemed to be a habitual violator of the CPR and meted the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
The factual milieux in Paita-Moya, 80Navales, 81 and Real82 do not stray away from this case. Respondent here also refused to vacate the leased property and pay his monthly rent despite complainants' repeated demands. Further, he chose not to participate in the ejectment proceedings against him and just waited for the court to evict him. Worse, he surreptitiously left the apartment to evade payment and even left behind overdue electric bills for three (3) months. 83
Thus, for his deceitful conduct in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR, the Court deems it appropriate to suspend respondent for six (6) months from the practice of law.
b. Violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR — Violent Conduct to the Discredit of the Legal Profession
In Belleza, 84 therein respondent got suspended for one (1) year for chasing and threatening to kill minors with his gun, in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR.
Yet in Cristobal v. Cristobal, 85 where therein respondent was also found guilty of violating the same rules when he committed acts of violence against his wife, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for three (3) months. In imposing this penalty, the Court took note that respondent's wife in that case provoked him to act the way he did. The Court also considered that respondent was the only one supporting all his four (4) children.
Lastly, in Canlapan v. Balayo, 86 therein respondent was found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 7.03 and Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he publicly berated and flailed his arm toward a senior citizen. For his conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, he was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month.
Here, respondent exhibited violent conduct not only once when he threatened complainants on November 2, 2005. His own neighbors witnessed his troublesome behavior and violent tendencies. Whenever he got drunk, he would step out of the apartment and indiscriminately fire his gun in the air. 87 While respondent had not hurt anyone physically, his repeated acts of violence show a deficiency in his moral character to the discredit of the legal profession. He fell short of his sworn duty to act with dignity and civility. Thus, for his violent conduct to the discredit of the legal profession in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR, the Court finds it proper and commensurate for respondent to be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Finally. It does not escape the Court's attention that it took the IBP thirteen (13) long years since the case was referred to it on January 21, 2008 88 to finally submit its report and recommendation to the Court on April 28, 2021. 89On this note, the Court admonishes the IBP to be more circumspect and prudent in handling the cases before it. That the parties failed to attend the mandatory conference or submit their respective position papers is not an excuse, nor a hindrance, to the prompt resolution of an administrative complaint against a lawyer. Surely, a case for suspension or disbarment of a member of the Bar may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest or lack of it. What matters is, whether on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge had been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings which is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. 90
So must it be.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Luzmindo Besario liable for:
1) Deceitful conduct in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months; and
2) Violent conduct to the discredit of the legal profession in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. He shall serve the imposed suspensions SUCCESSIVELY for a total of one (1) year.
Let a copy of this Resolution be (1) entered into the personal records of Atty. Luzmindo Besario with the Office of the Bar Confidant; (2) furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (3) circulated by the Court Administrator to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
This Resolution takes effect immediately. Atty. Luzmindo Besario is required to submit to the Office of the Bar Confidant the exact date when he shall have received this Resolution within five (5) days from notice.
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. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
2.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
3.Id. at 6 and 8.
4.Id. at 2 and 12.
5.Id. at 23-24.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id. at 1.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 4.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Id. at 5.
12.Id. at 2.
13.Id. at 4-7.
14.Id. at 8.
15. See a copy of the demand letter and the torn demand letter dated November 2, 2005; id. at 9-10.
16.Id. at 11.
17.Id. at 12.
18.Id. at 13.
19.Id. at 15.
20. Among other illnesses as shown in the Medical Certificate attached to the Supplemental Affidavit; id. at 21.
21. Dated April 24, 2006; id. at 22-25.
22.Id. at 17-21.
23.Id. at 20-21.
24.Id. at 22-25.
25.Id. at 26.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 3l.
28.Id. at 32-37.
29.Id. at 39-40.
30.Id. at 42.
31.Id. at 39-40.
32.Id. at 39.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 39-40.
35.Id. at 42.
36. IBP Records, p. 1.
37.Id. at 2-3.
38.Id. at 6.
39.Id. at unnumbered page.
40.Id. at 11-12.
41.Id. at 14-15.
42.Id. at 20.
43. IBP Records indicate page nos. 2-4 but the pagination seemed incorrect.
44. IBP Records indicate page nos. 2-4 but the pagination seemed incorrect. 44 Report and Recommendation, p. 2.
45.Rollo, unnumbered page.
46.Id. at unnumbered page.
47. RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
48.Cristobal v. Cristobal, A.C. No. 12702, November 10, 2020.
49.Rollo, pp. 17-21.
50.Id. at 26.
51.Id. at 8.
52. See a copy of the demand letter and the torn demand letter dated November 2, 2005; id. at 9-10.
53.Id. at 26.
54.Id. at 22-25.
55. 578 Phil. 566, 574 (2008).
56. A.C. No. 12689, September 1, 2020.
57.Id.
58.Rollo, p. 6.
59.Id. at 1.
60.Id. at 7.
61.Id. at 4.
62.Id. at 4-5.
63. As shown in the Medical Certificate attached to the Supplemental Affidavit; id. at 21.
64. A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020.
65. As shown in the Medical Certificate attached to the Supplemental Affidavit; id. at 21. 64 A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020. 65Rollo, p. 39.
66.Id. at 2 and 12.
67.Id.
68.Id. at 12.
69. See Lumbre v. Belleza, A.C. No. 12113, March 6, 2019.
70.Id.
71. 794 Phil. 360, 378 (2016).
72. 534 Phil. 471, 483 (2006).
73. A.C. No. 10463 (Notice), July 1, 2015.
74.Bautista v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 9057, July 3, 2019.
75. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
76. Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
77.Supra note 55.
78. 786 Phil. 484, 492-493 (2016).
79. A.C. No. 12689, September 1, 2020.
80.Supra note 55.
81.Supra note 78.
82. A.C. No. 12689, September 1, 2020.
83.Rollo, pp. 17-21.
84. A.C. No. 12113, March 6, 2019.
85. A.C. No. 12702, November 10, 2020.
86. 781 Phil. 63, 77 (2016).
87.Rollo, pp. 2 and 12.
88.Id. at 42.
89. IBP Letter of Transmittal dated April 28, 2021; id. at unnumbered page.
90. See Bautista v. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 241 (2006).