People Power morphs into Kabayanihan

Okey. Here it is. Let's look at our real situation today. 


Conrado de Quiros, a known Aquino supporter, wrote a very passionate piece today on how his idol, Noynoy, has lost all appreciation of People Power. De Quiros says that the Aquino government, at this point in time, is really not the government envisioned by those who supported Noynoy during the elections, which, is probably a government run by honest people from the volunteer groups. After a few days in office, Aquino suddenly dismissed these volunteer groups from his sight. 


I don't know if de Quiros really knows the real situation but let me allow him to peek a little bit--there is actually no truth to the rumours that these volunteer groups have dissipated.


Fact is, one such grouping, the Katipuneros, have already morphed into an institution, called the Kabayanihan Foundation Incorporation.


Yes, Conrad, there is still hope. 


Kabayanihan Foundation hopes to actualize People Power. Fact is, its members live and breathe, People Power. And they are guided by the 12 Little Things That Alex Lacson wrote for Filipinos who want to contribute for change in our society.


Kabayanihan taps into the creative sub-conscious of a people dying to see real change. It does not involve government--it engages government as just one of many of its stakeholders and audiences. 


I remember one public intellectual who said that the less government involved in social affairs, the more People rise up to the challenge of change.


Filipinos need to realize one thing--that it is time for them to rely less on government and rely more on collective will and strength. This is the true essence of People Power. And, thankfully, this is not an entirely new concept. 


Centuries ago, our forebears who formed the Katipunan, lived and breathed people power. These Katipuneros struggled and died for what they believed in. And Filipinos of this day and age are also expected to do the same for their country.

Millennium Challenge Fund is work done by Ombudsman--says ex Budget Secretary Andaya

Former budget secretary and now Congressman Rolando Andaya told the Committee on Finance at the Lower House yesterday that the Millennium Challenge fund, which was recently secured by the Aquino administration, was actually the product of years of hard work by the Arroyo administration, most especially, the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Office of the Ombudsman led by Merceditas Gutierrez contributed greatly to process the grant which requires a lot of things. One of them, an excellent performance from the anti-graft agency of government. 

IN 2008-2009, the Office of the Ombudsman worked hard to get a 56% prosecution rating, 16% higher than the 40% requirement of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the US agency tasked to process the funds grant. It was under the leadership of Assistant Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni of the Ombudsman Field Investigation Unit, that the Office of the Ombudsman made the highly successful prosecution rate. 

The US$434 Million grant is a 5-year compact between the MCC and the GRP. It intends to help the government reduce poverty. The funds will be used to support reforms and investments to modernized the BIR, expand and improve a community-driven development project, Kalahi-CIDSS and rehabilitate a secondary national road in Samar province.

There were 17 indicators that were put forth and one of them pertains to the anti-graft and corrupt record of the applicant-country. Unknown to many, the Ombudsman is the only constitutional body tasked with investigating cases of graft and corruption. It acts as a prosecuting body, much like the prosecutors of the Department of Justice. 

However, the Ombudsman can only investigate and file charges against government and/or private individuals involved in nefarious acts. It does not have the power to try them because it is another constitutional body, the Sandiganbayan, which has the mandate to act as a court. 

Let us laud the Office of the Ombudsman for doing such a fine job in the anti-corrupt and graft practices campaign of the government. 

Yesterday, however, I learned that the Aquino administration has significantly reduced the budget allotted for the Ombudsman. Why?

I still remember the inaugural speech of President Noynoy Aquino which essentially lay down a platform against graft and corruption. If this administration will reduce the budget of the Ombudsman, it likewise reduces its capability of going after the big-time thieves and corrupt men of our government. 

Congressman Rufus Rodriguez supports the budget proposal of the Ombudsman and even suggested that it be increased. Rodriguez, a former BID commissioner, knows exactly how important the budget is, especially to a constitutional body such as the Ombudsman. Governmental agencies need a big budget to fund its various campaigns, especially in going after these people who raid the public coffers and line their pockets with the people's money.

To hell with the impending impeachment proceedings against Merceditas Gutierrez. The people are not interested in politics. What the people want is justice. And how will the Ombudsman, as a Constitutional institution, honestly work for the full implementation of its mandate if this government tries to defang it to the detriment of the People?

This government must set aside politics and consider one thing--the implementation of its core agenda which is the fight against graft and corruption in governance.

ASHA: From being "super maids" to Excellent Professional Hotel Housekeepers

Ask a Briton what he thinks describes a Pinoy and probably, he'll say "maid". Several years ago, a dictitionary released an edition which shows an entry about "Pinoy". And what's the description or the synonym? Its Filipina or Pinay. 

It is time to change all that. 

Fact is, who is that poor minded guy who advised former president Gloria Arroyo to launch that "super maid" program? Whoever that guy or gal was, he did the Filipino People a great disservice.

Now, the tag of being a maid has now been clearly associated with a Filipina or a Pinay. Such an anomaly of sorts.

There is now a growing movement of citizens who want to uplift the dignity and the proud heritage of the Filipino. These Filipinos want to encourage our poor brothers and sisters to at least consider other jobs instead of getting or allowing themselves to become domestic helpers.

For example, do you know that for as low as 35,000, you'll be able to get a certificate on housekeeping? A TESDA-certified course being offered by the Philippines' top hotel school, the Asian School of Hospitality Arts allows an OFW or a prospective OFW to increase his job prospects and income by being a hotel staff housekeeper. Instead of getting a maid's job, why not be a hotel housekeeper? That is more profitable than being a maid and more worthy than being a domestic helper. 

Susan Ople, a friend and convenor of the Ople Labor Policy Center, an NGO which takes care of OFWs, agrees and says that our recruitment agencies should instead look for hotel staff jobs to offer our fellow Filipinos instead of the usual domestic helper posts.

At ASHA, that 30 or 35,000 investment for a 3-month professional housekeeping course could be remanded back to the enrollee through the school's "apprenticeship" program. 

The apprenticeship program gives enrollees the chance to work while studying. The enrollee spends 300 hours as an apprentice WITH PAY. After his apprenticeship, the enrollee is then placed as an employee in a 5-star hotel or restaurant, either here or abroad. 

IMagine that. After three months, you'll be able to get a certificate on professional housekeeping and use this as your entrypoint or springboard to a nice, stable and lucrative hotel and restaurant industry.

Aquino brings home US$2.5 billion worth of investments: who will really benefit?

President Noynoy Aquino and his entourage just came back from their UN trip with an estimated US$2.5 billion worth of investments. Malacanang has just hailed this as a triumphant visit, which was capped by a 7 minute meeting between Obama and Aquino. 

Curiously though, no exact details were released on this alleged US$2.8 billion worth of investments. The big question is--who are the groups who will really benefit from this "windfall"? Will it be the Cojuangco Group who accompanied Aquino in his UN tour? Or the group of Mar Roxas, who, as Aquino himself revealed, introduced him to a group of bankers in New York?

There has been a lot of speculations about Aquino's trip. One thing is definitely for sure, the Filipino People is slowly being left out as a priority in this administration. The government of Aquino is slowly being unmasked as a poor implementor of anti-poverty programs. The number of poor people has increased. And more will definitely be added among the ranks of the poor due to the rising costs of goods and gasoline.

Aquino is starting to un-inspire a lot of people. His stance about the IIRC report is, to my mind, a letdown. 

Trust or competence?

Which is more important for a principled leader--trust or competence? I am asking this in the light of what happened in the IIRC report. 


Justice secretary Leila de Lima recommended the filing of charges against DILG undersecretary Rico Puno. De Lima based her recommendations after the marathon hearings conducted to unveil the truth behind the hostage crisis last August 23. And what did Aquino say? The President wants the report reviewed by his legal team. For what? 


Why waste thousands of pesos worth of the public's money for that probe and then, tell the main investigator that your report will be reviewed anyway by those not in the loop? Why review a report which is based on facts? 


Will this be the nature of all probes on controversies and scandals that this administration will encounter in the future? 


Will justice just be lip-service to this government? Will commissions like De Lima's be just "for show", and not really meant to serve the greater good, which is knowing the truth?


De Lima has shown extreme competence. Why be penalized for serving the people with utmost honesty and integrity?


Meanwhile, Puno has shown extreme incompetence and tendency for graft. Yet, he remains still in the administration, because of one simple reason---he still enjoys the trust of the President. After all that has been said and done, Noynoy continues to trust a person who already lied before the public, who already admitted meeting jueteng lords and their emissaries and who, already admitted incompetence before the De Lima Commission. 


So, what is important for the President? A competent member of the Cabinet or an incompetent buddy? I just hope Aquino really knows what he is doing--what is right and what is really, really, wrong. 

Rico Puno Bagman to be exposed soon

If the Ombudsman and the media personalities are not to be charged, this is not the case for embattled DILG undersecretary Rico Puno.


Puno has been charged by the De Lima Commission as well as charged for receiving jueteng payola by Archbishop Oscar Cruz. 


Puno, who brags his closeness with the President, remains insistent. He claims to be innocent of the charges heaped against him. We know better.


One of Puno's very close classmates and associates is reportedly his bag man. This classmate has been Puno's associate since the 90's and is reportedly the one who has asked for an audience with known big-time jueteng lords. 


This is the same friend whom Puno claims to be very insistent on him meeting the jueteng lords, when, the fact was, he and his associate, according to several intelligence sources, was the one who asked for those meetings.


Likewise, reports are to surface of Puno's associates in the gun selling industry. Several of Puno's close associates are reportedly connected or linked to shady criminal syndicates. 


Puno has lots of explaining to do. Why is Puno not resigning?


Is it because of the 20 million peso contribution of Tonyboy Cojuangco that he is protecting?


I suggest Tonyboy nominates another one to represent him in Aquino's administration. Puno would surely drag him down to hell, and that includes, Aquino.

De Lima Commission and the IIRC report---Designed to fail

He died in vain.

The controversial De Lima report has been released, sans pages 61-85, which states the ones to be prosecuted and their alleged crimes. Prior to the departure of President Aquino, the Chief Executive named all those responsible for the botched August 23 hostage fiasco. 


Everyone who were invited for questioning in the Delima Commission received the boot, including, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and Deputy ombudsman Ed Gonzales. So surprising since the two were never involved in the negotiating panel anyway.


Three networks are also expecting  summons very soon from the governmental body which will be tasked to file charges. Even two of my media colleagues, Mike Rogas and Erwin Tulfo, are now facing a possible criminal charge.


The question everyone is asking is--why include the Office of the Ombudsman? They did not do anything illegal. They were asked by the negotiators to give the status of the case filed against the hostage taker. They did so thru a letter transmitted thru Vice Mayor Isko Moreno. That letter, in fact, paved for the release of one hostage.


What is so wrong with that?


The Office of the Ombudsman is a constitutional judicial body. Its mandate is clear---prosecute erring government officials particularly those involved in graft and corrupt cases. 


There were suggestions to the effect that the negotiations could have ended if the Office of the Ombudsman just tricked the hostage taker by issuing a favorable letter. 


Crap.


First off, the Ombudsman did issue a favorable letter. Gutierrez, in her generosity, signed a letter signifying her interest in resolving the case of Mendoza. She gave him some glimpse of hope. That is more than enough leeway. The Office has just bent itself over just to accommodate the wiles and caprices of a criminal. That letter is enough.


Second, why give in to the demands of a deranged criminal? Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Mark Jalandoni is right---the Office of the Ombudsman does not and would not give in to the demands of criminals and terrorists because it will destroy the very integrity of this constitutional body.


What respect would people accord to the office if it issued a bogus letter? It would systematically destroy the very institution tasked in resolving cases.


I agree with Jalandoni that it will even encourage other criminals and grafters in government with pending cases before the Office of the Ombudsman to resort to pressure tactics and illegal acts just to get favorable results from them. That, according to Jalandoni, would set a very dangerous precedent. 


The Ombudsman would not allow that.


Now, on to the very core of this entry---that the De Lima Report is bound or designed to fail. Why do I say this?


Very simple. Who will then be tasked to prosecute the personalities that the body recommended to be filed administrative charges?


Will it be the Department of Justice? Obviously, they are now estopped since De Lima herself headed the commission that investigated the matter. No prosecutor will touch these cases.


Will it be the Office of the Ombudsman? Quite a logical choice since it is within the mandate of the Ombudsman to try these cases. The problem really is, the report included Gutierrez, the very head of the office which is constitutionally mandated to prosecute erring government officials.


Who, then, will prosecute? No one. 


This explains why the De Lima report included Gutierrez name in it--to weaken the institution and wring its hands to prevent it from touching this very delicate and highly sensitive political issue. 


Fact is, the De Lima report was written with politics smeared all over its pages. According to sources, the first draft did not include the name of Gutierrez and Gonzales V. Yet, the final report shows their names already in the dispositive portion. Who inserted their names and why?


Some sectors believe there is a deliberate attempt to weaken the institution of the Office of the Ombudsman and for what purpose? To urge this institution to become an ally of this administration. There are many appointees of this administration who have pending cases before the Ombudsman. By including the name of Gutierrez, these Malacanang factotums hope that the Ombudsman would probably "soften up".


The question really---will the Ombudsman actually bend to their interests, seeing that this administration is slowly losing its credibility before the eyes of the Filipino People? 


This report is just to appease the Chinese community, never really intended to prosecute the very people responsible for this fiasco. 


In the end, there will be no one who will go to jail for bungling their jobs which led to the deaths of eight Hongkongers. 


Now, will the relatives of the victims use the report to file a case before the international courts? No. If these relatives intend to file criminal cases, they cannot do so because the ones which has jurisdiction over the supposed responsible personalities is the Philippines. Can they use the report to file a civil case? Possibly, since it just involves some sort of reparations. 

Robin Padilla-Mariel Rodriguez marriage is a sham

I just saw Robin Padilla's interview with Tina Monsod-Palma on the World Tonight. And I must say that he's definitely in love. 


However, I hate to be a prude but Robin's claim that he is already married to Mariel Rodriguez last August 19 is actually a sham. There was no marriage that happened in India. There was a Muslim ceremony initiated between two love birds, but sadly, there was no marriage that occurred. Let me explain.


Under The Family Code, for two people to be legally married, there must be a marriage license granted by the government. A marriage license is an important requisite for a valid marriage. 


Robin admitted that what happened was a "whirlwind" marriage. There was no intention on the part of Robin nor Mariel to get married at the time when Robin was in India. There was no mention of a marriage license procured by the couple prior to their marriage. Hence, their marriage is not legal from the beginning or what we term as "void ab initio"


Another important component lacking during the August 19 marriage between Padilla and Rodriguez is the Filipino ambassador. For a marriage conducted overseas to be valid, there must be an officiating officer present, preferably, the ambassador or even a consul-general. The ambassador is the state representative, authorized to solemnize a marriage.


A Muslim Imam, unfortunately, especially if he's a foreigner, does not bear a legal right to conduct or solemnize marriages. Hence, the ceremony is not recognized under our laws, therefore, no marriage took place. 


So, there are two (2) things which are considered major requisites lacking in that August 19, 2010 marriage---a marriage license and the lack of authority by the solemnizing officer to conduct the marriage.


Now, then, is the Ibaloi ceremony, a valid marriage? No. Again, there was no marriage license present when the two lovebirds got hitched. The Ibaloi priest probably has authority to solemnize marriages but he cannot do it without seeing the marriage license. 


How about the pastor-led ceremony which took place after the Ibaloi ceremony, what it valid? No, because there was, again, let me reiterate no marriage license secured prior to the ceremony. 


So, there. Don't be fooled. Robin Padilla, probably because of his excitement to get over his recent separation with his former wife and his willingness to marry another, should be forgiven for this. However, I hate to say it, but the two must follow the law and re-marry. 


For their union to be legally firm, Padilla and Mariel Rodriguez must secure a marriage license first before they even engage themselves into any marriage ceremony.


Lastly, let me then say that for the benefit of Mariel, she should really check if Padilla's marriage with Liezel Sicangco has been annulled already. If the marriage is not annulled, then, what they did last August 19 was harmless since it was not valid in the first place. 


However, if they do intend to get married very soon, Padilla must first resolve his earlier marriage with Sicangco. I know Padilla separated from Sicangco using the Muslim's right to divorce his wife, but Padilla must still secure a court order stating that his previous marriage has been declared by competent authority to be legally annulled. 

St. Francis of Assisi Mobile College

A good friend, EQ said that you can't help the poor by being poor. Good point. There are, however, instances, EQ when you can help the poor, even if you don't have any penny in your pocket.

Be their teacher. Be someone who will not only give them something to eat, give them the tools and the knowledge how to get food.

I have a project in mind. According to my research, there are only 3 high school students who will get themselves in college. Three out of 6. Reason? Poverty.

EQ, bear me on this.

I am thinking of setting up a mobile college, which has the authority to issue diplomas certified by the Commission on Higher Education. I call this my St. Francis of Assisi Mobile College Educational Program or St. Francis of AMCEP.

I intend to encourage my colleagues in different industries and professions to come together and lend their time teaching poor, yet deserving students who want to finish a college course. We could start by filing an accreditation of the program as an educational institution which offers at least two (2) courses, either a pre-law or an engineering course. I have friends who are engineers already who can probably lend their free time teaching these poor students.

Maintaining a mobile school is costly, so I figured, why not ask the barangay to lend them their basketball courts and transform them into weekly college classrooms.

If you're interested to join, I will be very willing to welcome you to the group.

The Office of the Ombusman: True Servants of the Filipino People

One of the numerous complaints that Filipinos have about the judicial system is its perceived "slowness". Some cases, especially those filed at the Supreme Court, take years to resolve. I asked one of my lawyer friends and there are certain instances where a case takes decades to resolve. What is the reason for such slow response to the issue of justice?

First, I think that it is unfair for Filipinos to judge the judicial system as such. For one, the judicial system right now is under tight watch by majority of Filipinos simply because the primordial concern of most everyone is the speedy dispensation of justice. This is a right enshrined in the Constitution and government is expected to protect it.

If this right is clearly not being respected by the State and judicial bodies fail in their duties to dispense justice at the quickest allowable time, then people often perceive the entire system as dysfunctional, or worst, simply unimportant.

What people don't know right now is there are certain agencies of government that tries very hard to resolve cases filed before them.

I am talking about the Office of the Ombusman.

Yes, there are perceptions that the Office of the Ombusman is one agency of government that behaves like the others. That cases filed before the sala of the OMbusman takes years to resolve. Yet, based on my research, it is very clear that the Office of the Ombusman is actually faster than others.

Examples are charges filed against people responsible for the noodle scam, the ZTE-NBN deal, the swine scam at the Quedancor, the Euro Generals and many others.

Unknown to many, the Office of the Ombusman has taken the cudgels as swift dispensers of justice by investigating thoroughly the roles and participation of certain government officials in these scandals.

Fact is, the Office of the Ombusman took a pro-active role in many of these issues. Sadly though, and this is being talked about in legal circles, the media failed to appreciate the work of the OMB.

And the reason for the misappreciation of the Ombusman's work is the lack of understanding about the legal processes involved in resolving cases.

A friend of mine explained that the Office of the Ombusman starts by investigating the case. After investigation, it then allows parties involved to file answers or counters. Afterwards, it then submits its findings to the Office of the Ombusman where the case is thoroughly looked at, assessed as to its legality or constitutionality and thereafter, recommends either the dismissal or filing of appropriate criminal or administrative charges to the Sandiganbayan. The entire process, from determination of a case, to preliminary investigation to a recommedation for filing of charges takes time.

When the resolution of a particular case has taken the long, yet legal route,people complain and often think that the Office of the Ombusman has neglected its mandate. Like any other agency of government, the OMB is mandated to follow the rules so to speak, otherwise, it will negate its very nature as a judicial body.

The Ombusman can only be accused of a crime or impropriety if it purposely neglects its duty as investigator of graft cases. Or, if it decides contrary to law. Yet, I am in the opinion, and this is based again on my research, the Ombusman has not been remissed of its primary duties. Fact is, according to a 2009 report, it even surpassed its mandate.

And this is largely due to the efforts of the Ombusman Merceditas Gutierrez and most of the Ombusman's men, including Deputy Ombusman for Luzon Mark Jalandoni. Like his boss, Merceditas Gutierrez, Jalandoni, according to some insiders, is one of the most hard-working members of the Ombusman. When he headed the Field Investigation Unit of the OMB, Jalandoni distinguished himself for being the one who discovered the swine scam at the Quedancor.

Jalandoni, insiders say, is deeply committed to the mandate of his office. He serves with utmost dedication. He is one prime example of an honest government servant. MOst of his colleagues respected him, for his dedication, his honesty and integrity.

Anyway, I really think that it is high time for people to give more of their trust to agencies of government like the Ombusman. The people behind this agency works extremely hard. it is rather unfair that we lump them together with other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies which often fail in  their mandates.

Robin Padilla's explanation why he married Mariel using the Ibaloi ceremony

Robin Padilla, a avowed Muslim revert, issued a statement via ABS-CBNNews.com. Here is his statement on why he married actress Mariel Rodriguez in an Ibaloi ceremony which involves the smearing of blood from a pig.

MANILA, Philippines - Actor Robin Padilla has issued a statement regarding reports that he and actress-host Mariel Rodriguez tied the knot in Benguet last Monday.

In a text message sent to ABS-CBN News, Padilla said what happened in Baguio was part of their lives as a couple. He added the ceremony will also be used for an upcoming show on ABS-CBN.


"Ang mga naganap sa lupa ng mga Cariño sa Baguio ay isa lamang sa mga nagaganap na yugto sa aming pag-ibig at sa nalalapit na programa sa ABS-CBN," Padilla said.


Despite the Igorot rites, the actor, a Muslim convert, said he remains faithful to Islam. He added that the tribal ceremony is part of Filipino culture and tradition.


Walang dapat ipangamba ang mga kapatiran, kababayan at katribo sapagkat ang pagsunod namin ay sa Islam, ang pagpupugay namin ay sa Kristianismo at ang pakikiisa namin ay sa kultura at tradisyong Pilipino," Padilla added.

Some believed that what Robin did was an innovation or bidah which is contrary to Islamic belief. Bidah is prohibited since no one is allowed to do acts which is not written in the Noble Qu'ran or in the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

You cannot mix and match religions to suit your own personal tastes or beliefs. Islam is not something which you can add or subtract something. 

Islam is a religion which Allah SWT has deemed holy and true because it abides in the acts and practices which were handled down by Allah SWT to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

You cannot say that you follow Islam, and then you pay homage to Christianity and do acts "in solidarity with the culture and tradition that is Filipino", no. 

There is no such thing in Islam. It is either you believe in it or not. It is clear in the Noble Qu'ran that those who are either cold or hot will suffer eternal damnation. 

Besides, why would anyone who believes in Islam, marries someone using Christian ceremonies?  

Now, Padilla says the Ibaloi ceremony will be used in the upcoming show of ABS-CBN. He wants to say that the smearing of pig's blood on his face and that of his wife is not haram since it is just for show.

Brother, even if it's just "acting", smearing of pig's blood on your face is clearly prohibited. Blood is an abomination. Touching blood particularly that of a creature which is quite probihited to even touch is haram.

Of course, I am not in a position to judge what is really inside Robin's heart. It is only Allah SWT. Yet, these acts of Robin clearly show how he misinterpret the teachings of Islam. May someone, possibly Brother Rodriguez, remind him of his strong duties and responsibilities as a Muslim.

My One Page Manifesto

I often ask myself—why do I work so hard for other people when I can work just for myself. Why can I just build my own business and thrive from my own money? Many people tell me that that’s the right way to get rich.



Some even told me that you need to study how rich people do it. I remember David Bach. He said that the more he studies the lives of the rich and wealthy, the more he gets convinced that many people are actually not rich. And it’s so simple really. Jack Canfield, who teaches the Law of Probabilities say that the more books you read, the higher the chances of you discovering solutions to your personal problems. Fact is, George Clason read so many books and found that money is plentiful for those who understand the simple laws which govern its acquisition.


Felix Dennis said the secret in having lots of money is simply being confident that you’ll get it. You need to be tenacious. You need to be ahead of your game always. You need to condition your mind that you can be successful, you can be rich and you can get whatever you want. It’s all in the mind, says Steve Forbes. It’s the real source of wealth.


And then what?


Ask yourself—what if you do get lots of money and attained tremendous wealth and fame, what then? What’s the next step? For Eli Broad, money is just a means to do well. With money, Clason said, many things are possible. Those who just think that possessing lots of money is enough and nothing more, they belong to the pitiably wretched class, says Andrew Carnegie. And really, says Paul Clitheroe, you are defined with how you spend your money, not how you get it.


A man is defined by how he spends his wealth. If he spends it for the poor, he is actually richer than a billionaire who does nothing of his money but buys stocks or keeps it in a bank. If he spends it and makes lots of people happy, then, he is as rich as the Saudi shah that keeps those oil mines. Is the rich world aware of how four billion of the six billion live? If we were aware, we would want to help out, we'd want to get involved, says Bill Gates.


Fact is, for so many people, getting people happy and allowing people to get rich themselves is the most important compliment. Even Henry Thoreau once said that the richest man is those whose pleasures are the cheapest. When you reach a point when you suddenly ask yourself what the hell am I going to do with all this money, you’ll suddenly tell yourself it’s time to unlearn getting rich and start learning how to give. That’s what Ted Turner learned.


So, I ask myself--why do I work for other people? Simple. I want other people to be happy. I want to have relevance. I want to be of value.


Think about it. If you work for a school, you actually help other people carve a career for themselves and make them rich. If you work in a food company, think of how many people smile whenever they eat those foods. And if you in a bank, think of how many futures you help save.


This, I believe, is the secret to wealth. Wealth is not measured by the amount you spend. It is how you spend them and how you get them, that’s important.

Jose Camano--Suspended due to "Technical Extortion" not Disbarred

Let me correct my earlier entry about Atty. Jose Camano. He claims that he is still included in the roster of attorneys and was not disbarred. Okey.



Let me then correct myself to say that Atty. Jose Camano was not disbarred but meted a suspension order by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for acts described as technical extortion…accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party. One commenter, a certain Rodolfo claims that Atty. Camano’s license to practice law remains suspended as communicated by the Philippine Supreme Court to the California bar, where Atty. Camano is now residing.

• Rodolfo said:


to jcc: Have you already applied for reinstatement of your license to practice law?


Your license to practice law has been suspended. Solatan vs Attys Inocentes and Camano: On the basis of acts branded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as “bordering on technical extortion,” accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party, and casting doubts as to the procedure of levy, the IBP resolved[1] to recommend the suspension of Atty. Camano from the practice of law for one (1) year.


Pero at the end of the suspension period, hindi automatically ibibigay uli sa iyo ang lisensiya mo. [Malay nila, baka gusto mong maging nurse na lang, o maging seaman.] The Philippine Supreme Court was correct when it told California Bar that your license to practice law remained suspended — hindi ka naman pala nag-apply for re-instatement, eh.( http://www.quezon.ph/2008/09/20/my-choice/)

And by the way, what was the reason why Atty. Camano lost his license or was suspended by the IBP?


According to the case Solatan vs. Inocentes, Atty. Camano committed the following acts:

Based on the facts revealed in their respective Memoranda, the penalty of six (6) months suspension is therefore recommended to be imposed on Respondent Camano for committing the following acts that adversely reflects (sic) on his moral fitness to continue to practice law[:]


1. He received money (P5,000 then P1,000) from the adverse party purportedly for attorneys fees and for reimbursement of sheriff’s expenses. Such act of accepting funds from the adverse party in the process of implementing a writ, borders on technical extortion particularly in light of the factual circumstances as discussed.


2. He gave unsolicited advice to the adverse party in suggesting the filing of an Affidavit of Ownership over the levied properties, a suggestion evidently in conflict with [the interest of] his own client, supposedly, the Genitos.


3. He failed to turn over the gas stove to either party thereby casting doubt as to the procedure of the levy.

The IBP Board of Governors resolved the case of Atty. Camano.

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the of the Investigating Commissioner…finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification, and for accepting funds from adverse party in the process of implementing a writ borders on technical extortion, for giving unsolicited advice to the adverse party a suggestion evidently in conflict with [the interest of] his own client and for casting doubts to the procedure of the levy, Atty. Jose C. Camano is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, likewise, Atty. Oscar Inocentes is hereby REPRIMANDED for he exercised command responsibility over the case inasmuch as he received periodic reports either by phone or in person.

So, there. I am now republishing the case here in its entirety.





SECOND DIVISION

GEORGE C. SOLATAN, A.C. No. 6504


Complainant,


Present:


PUNO, J.,


Chairman,


- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,


CALLEJO, SR.,


TINGA, and


CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.




ATTYS. OSCAR A. INOCENTES Promulgated:
and JOSE C. CAMANO,


Respondents. August 9, 2005


x-------------------------------------------------------------------x


D E C I S I O N


TINGA, J.:

The present case focuses on a critical aspect of the lawyer-client relationshipthe duty of loyalty. The fidelity lawyers owe their clients is traditionally characterized as “undivided.” This means that lawyers must represent their clients and serve their needs without interference or impairment from any conflicting interest.


This administrative case traces its roots from the manner by which Attys. Jose C. Camano and Oscar A. Inocentes responded to the efforts of complainant, George C. Solatan, to lease a certain Quezon City apartment belonging to the attorneys’ clients. On the basis of acts branded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as “bordering on technical extortion,” accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party, and casting doubts as to the procedure of levy, the IBP resolved[1] to recommend the suspension of Atty. Camano from the practice of law for one (1) year. It likewise recommended the reprimand of Atty. Inocentes, whom it held liable for the aforementioned acts of his associate, under the principle of command responsibility.


Only Atty. Inocentes has elected to contest the resolution of the IBP, as he questions the propriety of his being held administratively liable for acts done by Atty. Camano.[2] However, the recommendation to suspend Atty. Camano shall also be passed upon by virtue of Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.[3]


Attys. Inocentes and Camano were both engaged in the practice of law under the firm name of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office. Atty. Inocentes held office in his home located at No. 19 Marunong St., Central District, Quezon City, while Atty. Camano was stationed at an “extension office” of the firm located in 3rd/F, 956 Aurora Blvd., Quirino Dist., Quezon City.


The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Andres and Ludivina Genito (spouses Genito), owners of an apartment complex (the Genito Apartments) located at 259 Tandang Sora cor. Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on 9 July 1986.[4] The law office represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan, and subsequently, with authority from the PCGG.[5] in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments.[6]


Complainant’s sister, Gliceria Solatan, was a tenant in Door 10, Phase B of the Genito Apartments. It appears from the records that Gliceria Solatan left for the United States in 1986, and since then, the apartment was either intermittently used by members of her family or placed under the charge of caretakers.[7] In August 1987, a complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against Gliceria Solatan.[8] On 3 March 1988, in a judgment by default, a Decision[9] was rendered ordering Gliceria Solatan to vacate the premises of the apartment, pay the spouses Genito the amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P30,600.00) as unpaid rentals from February 1986 to July 1987 with interest at 24% per annum from 20 August 1987 until the premises are vacated, Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit.[10]


Complainant was occupying the subject apartment when he learned of the judgment rendered against his sister. On 10 May 1988, prior to the implementation of a writ to execute the judgment, complainant and his mother, Elvira Solatan, approached Atty. Inocentes at his home office. Complainant informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a lease contract by virtue of which complainant would be the new lessee of the apartment and thus make possible his continued stay therein. Atty. Inocentes referred complainant and his mother to his associate, Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of the ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito apartments. After the exchange, complainant went to Atty. Camano at the satellite office of Atty. Inocentes’s firm. From here on out, events quickly turned sour. Different versions of subsequent events were presented. The facts reproduced hereunder are by and large culled from the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, Siegfred B. Mison.


During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which complainant and his mother agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of Gliceria Solatan, including fifty percent of the awarded attorney’s fees and One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P1,600.00) as costs of suit provided that Atty. Camano would allow complainant’s continued stay at Door 10, Phase B of the Genito Apartments. As partial compliance with the agreement, complainant issued in the name Atty. Camano a check for Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) representing half of the P10,000.00 attorney’s fees adjudged against complainant’s sister.


Complainant and his mother failed to make any other payment. Thus, the sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano and some policemen, enforced the writ of execution on 22 June 1988 and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. An attempt at renegotiation took place at the insistence of complainant, resulting in Atty. Camano’s acquiescence to release the levied properties and allowing complainant to remain at the apartment, subject to the latter’s payment of costs incurred in enforcing the writ of execution and issuance of postdated checks representing installment rental payments. Complainant, thus, issued four (4) checks drawn on Far East Bank and Trust Company dated the fifteenth (15th) of July, August, September, and October 1988 each in the amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P3,400.00).[11] Half of the amount represented complainant’s monthly rental, while the other half, a monthly installment for the payment of Gliceria Solatan’s judgment debt.


On 28 June 1988, acting on the advice of Atty. Camano, complainant presented an Affidavit of Ownership to the sheriff who then released the levied items to complainant. However, a Northern Hill 3-burner gas stove was not retuned to complainant. The stove was in fact kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments wherein he temporarily stayed[12] and, thereafter, turned over the same to a certain Recto Esberto, caretaker of the Genito Apartments.[13]


On 1 August 1988, complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Inocentes and Atty. Camano.[14] After formal investigation, and despite conflicting testimonies on the tenor and content of agreements and conversations, several disturbing facts were revealed to have been uncontroverted—Atty. Camano’s acceptance from complainant of attorney’s fees and the costs of implementing the writ of execution, possession of complainant’s levied Northern Hill oven, and advice to complainant on how to recover the latter’s levied items. Thus, IBP Investigating Commissioner Siegfred B. Mison, made the following recommendations, viz:


Based on the facts revealed in their respective Memoranda, the penalty of six (6) months suspension is therefore recommended to be imposed on Respondent Camano for committing the following acts that adversely reflects (sic) on his moral fitness to continue to practice law[:]


1. He received money (P5,000 then P1,000) from the adverse party purportedly for attorneys fees and for reimbursement of sheriff’s expenses. Such act of accepting funds from the adverse party in the process of implementing a writ, borders on technical extortion particularly in light of the factual circumstances as discussed.


2. He gave unsolicited advice to the adverse party in suggesting the filing of an Affidavit of Ownership over the levied properties, a suggestion evidently in conflict with [the interest of] his own client, supposedly, the Genitos.

3. He failed to turn over the gas stove to either party thereby casting doubt as to the procedure of the levy.


Based on the facts revealed, the penalty of Reprimand is therefore recommended to be imposed on Respondent Inocentes for committing the following acts that adversely reflects (sic) in his fitness to continue to practice law[:]


1. He allowed Camano to perform all the aforementioned acts, either by negligence or inadvertence which are inimical to the legal profession. He cannot claim ignorance or feign innocence in this particular transaction considering that the Complainants themselves went to his office on different occasions regarding this transaction. Ultimately, he exercised command responsibility over the case and had supervisory control over Respondent Camano inasmuch as he received periodic reports either by phone or in person from the latter.


2. The letter disclaimer executed by Mr. Genito filed by Respondent Inocentes does not mitigate any liability whatsoever since the wrongdoing done against the profession cannot be undone by a mere letter from a third party.[15] (Emphasis supplied.)


The IBP Board of Governors approved the aforequoted recommendation, with the modification of an increase in Atty. Camano’s period of suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year, in a resolution stating, viz:


RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the of the Investigating Commissioner…finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification, and for accepting funds from adverse party in the process of implementing a writ borders on technical extortion, for giving unsolicited advice to the adverse party a suggestion evidently in conflict with [the interest of] his own client and for casting doubts to the procedure of the levy, Atty. Jose C. Camano is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, likewise, Atty. Oscar Inocentes is hereby REPRIMANDED for he exercised command responsibility over the case inasmuch as he received periodic reports either by phone or in person.[16]


The IBP held that Atty. Camano’s act of giving unsolicited advice to complainant is a culpable act because the advice conflicted with the interest of his clients, the spouses Genito. The rule on conflicting interests, established in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, deals with conflicts in the interests of an attorney’s actual clients among themselves, of existing and prospective clients, and of the attorney and his clients. It states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.








The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained.[17] An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained.[18] To establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession.[19] At the time the questioned statement was made, Atty. Camano had called the police to restrain complainant from surreptitiously pulling out the levied properties from the apartment complex by virtue of which the latter was brought to the police station for questioning. The statement was made in response to complainant’s insistence at the police station that the levied properties were owned by him and not by the judgment debtor.[20] No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case.






More fitting, albeit, to the mind of this Court, inapplicable to the case, is Canon 15 of the same Code which encompasses the aforementioned rule. In general terms, Canon 15 requires lawyers to observe loyalty in all


dealings and transactions with their clients.[21] Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, far be it that every utterance of an attorney which may have afforded an individual some relief adverse to the former’s client may be labeled as a culpable act of disloyalty. As in every case, the acts alleged to be culpable must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances.






While the levy was made on chattel found in the apartment of the judgment debtor, Gliceria Solatan, the complainant was the true owner of the properties. Consequently, the latter had a right to recover the same. In fact, considering the circumstances, the questioned statement is in consonance with complainant’s foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of the court. The statement of Atty. Camano in such a context should not be construed by this Court as giving advice in conflict against the interest of the spouses Genito as in fact the latter have no interest over the incorrectly levied properties.


























We, thus, note that the act of informing complainant that the levied properties would be returned to him upon showing proof of his ownership thereof may hint at infidelity to the interest of the spouses Genito, but, in this circumstance, lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal of the latter’s confidence so as to deserve outright categorization as infidelity or disloyalty to his clients’ cause. Nonetheless, after having noted the foregoing, we remain convinced with the propriety of meting the one (1) year suspension from the practice of law on Atty. Camano, as recommended by the IBP, based on his other culpable acts which tend to degrade the profession and foment distrust in the integrity of court processes.






On the other hand, Atty. Inocentes seeks to distance himself from the events that transpired and the reprimand resulting therefrom by asserting that he was incorrectly punished for Atty. Camano’s acts when his mere participation in the fiasco was to refer complainant and his mother to Atty. Camano.






However, it is precisely because of such participation, consisting as it did of referring the complainant to his associate lawyer, that Atty. Inocentes may be held administratively liable by virtue of his associate’s unethical acts. His failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. The term “command responsibility,” as Atty. Inocentes suggests, has special meaning within the circle of men in uniform in the military; however, the principle does not abide solely therein. It controls the very circumstance in which Atty. Inocentes found himself.






We are not unaware of the custom of practitioners in a law firm of assigning cases and even entire client accounts to associates or other partners with limited supervision, if at all. This is especially true in the case of Attys. Inocentes and Camano who, from the records, both appear to be seasoned enough to be left alone in their work without requiring close supervision over each other’s conduct and work output. However, let it not be said that law firm practitioners are given a free hand to assign cases to seasoned attorneys and thereafter conveniently forget about the case. To do so would be a disservice to the profession, the integrity and advancement of which this Court must jealously protect.






That the firm name under which the two attorneys labored was that of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office does not automatically make Atty. Inocentes the default lawyer acting in a supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano. It did, however, behoove Atty. Inocentes to exert ordinary diligence to find out what was going on in his law firm. It placed in Atty. Inocentes the active responsibility to inquire further into the circumstances affecting the levy of complainant’s properties, irrespective of whether the same were in fact events which could possibly lead to administrative liability. Moreover, as name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility.[22] It is not without reason or consequence that Atty. Inocentes’s name is that which was used as the official designation of their law office.






With regard to the actual existence of Atty. Inocentes’s supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano’s activities, the IBP Investigating Commissioner based the same on his finding that Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter’s dealings with complainant. This finding is the linchpin of Atty. Inocentes’s supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof.






















Law practitioners are acutely aware of the responsibilities that are naturally taken on by partners and supervisory lawyers over the lawyers and non-lawyers of the law office. We have held that lawyers are administratively liable for the conduct of their employees in failing to timely file pleadings.[23] In Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al.,[24] partners in a law office were admonished for the contemptuous language in a pleading submitted to court despite, and even due to, the fact that the pleading was not passed upon by any of the partners of the office. We held therein that partners are duty bound to provide for efficacious control of court pleadings and other court papers that carry their names or the name of the law firm.[25]






We now hold further that partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. Nonetheless, the liability of the supervising lawyer in this regard is by no means equivalent to that of the recalcitrant lawyer. The actual degree of control and supervision exercised by said supervising lawyer varies, inter alia, according to office practice, or the length of experience and competence of the lawyer supervised. Such factors can be taken into account in ascertaining the proper penalty. Certainly, a lawyer charged with the supervision of a fledgling attorney prone to rookie mistakes should bear greater responsibility for the culpable acts of the underling than one satisfied enough with the work and professional ethic of the associate so as to leave the latter mostly to his/her own devises.






While Atty. Camano’s irregular acts perhaps evince a need for greater supervision of his legal practice, there is no question that it has been Atty. Inocentes’ practice to allow wide discretion for Atty. Camano to practice on his own. It does constitute indifference and neglect for Atty. Inocentes to fail to accord even a token attention to Atty. Camano’s conduct which could have brought the then impending problem to light. But such is not equivalent to the proximate responsibility for Atty. Camano’s acts. Moreover, it appears from the records that Atty. Inocentes is a former judge and a lawyer who, as of yet, is in good standing and it is the first time in which Atty. Inocentes has been made to answer vicariously for the misconduct of a person under his charge. An admonition is appropriate under the circumstances.










WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution dated 16 April 2004 is AFFIRMED in respect of the sanction meted out on Atty. Camano. Atty. Inocentes is hereby ADMONISHED to monitor more closely the activities of his associates to make sure that the same are in consonance with the Code of Professional Responsibility with the WARNING that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt with more severely.






No pronouncement as to costs.






SO ORDERED.














DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice










WE CONCUR:


















REYNATO S. PUNO


Associate Justice


Chairman






































MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ


Associate Justice


































ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.


Associate Justice


















MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO


Associate Justice














________________________________________






[1]In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-231 dated 16 April 2004 for CBD Case No. 019 entitled George C. Solatan v. Atty. Oscar A. Inocentes and Atty. Jose C. Camano, Rollo, pp. 703-704.






[2]Petition dated 28 July 2004, Rollo, p. 712-724.






[3]Sec. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. – … (b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.






[4]Rollo, p. 6. See also p. 25.






[5]Id. at 79.






[6]Id. at 25, 70, and 78. See also p. 78.






[7]Id. at 409-414.






[8]Entitled “Sps. Andres V. Genito & Ludivina L. Genito v. Gliceria Solatan,” docketed as Civil Case No. 51745.






[9]Dated 3 March 1988 rendered by Judge Ricardo A. Buenviaje of MTC Quezon City, Branch 38.






[10]Rollo, pp. 77-78.






[11]See Rollo, p. 58.






[12]Id. at 581 and 624.






[13]Id. at 581 and 624.










[14]Id. at 136-150.






[15]Id. at 708-709.






[16]Supra note 1 at 703.






[17]RUBEN E. AGPALO, COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, 2001 Ed., p. 138, citing Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 174 U.S. 412 (1899).






[18]Id. at 138-39.






[19]Id. at 139.






[20]Rollo, p. 578.






[21]Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.






[22]Many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted Section 5.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which relevantly requires, first, that partners make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has measures in effect to assure that all lawyers in the form conform to the rules of professional conduct, and second, that a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to these rules. This explicit responsibility was incorporated by some states in the late 1990’s but was in theory already being applied by several jurisdictions. See ZITRIN, RICHARD A., and LANGFORD, CAROL M., LEGAL ETHICS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, 2ND Ed., p. 658; see also http:www.mass.gov/obcbbo/supervise.htm.






[23]Adaza v. Barinaga, 192 Phil. 198 (1981).






[24]G.R. No. L-22979, 26 June 1967, 20 SCRA 441.






[25]Id. at 446.


















SECOND DIVISION










GEORGE C. SOLATAN, A.C. No. 6504


Complainant,


Present:






PUNO, J.,


Chairman,


- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,


CALLEJO, SR.,


TINGA, and


CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.










ATTYS. OSCAR A. INOCENTES Promulgated:


and JOSE C. CAMANO,


Respondents. August 9, 2005


x-------------------------------------------------------------------x










D E C I S I O N










TINGA, J.:






The present case focuses on a critical aspect of the lawyer-client relationshipthe duty of loyalty. The fidelity lawyers owe their clients is traditionally characterized as “undivided.” This means that lawyers must represent their clients and serve their needs without interference or impairment from any conflicting interest.






This administrative case traces its roots from the manner by which Attys. Jose C. Camano and Oscar A. Inocentes responded to the efforts of complainant, George C. Solatan, to lease a certain Quezon City apartment belonging to the attorneys’ clients. On the basis of acts branded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as “bordering on technical extortion,” accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party, and casting doubts as to the procedure of levy, the IBP resolved[1] to recommend the suspension of Atty. Camano from the practice of law for one (1) year. It likewise recommended the reprimand of Atty. Inocentes, whom it held liable for the aforementioned acts of his associate, under the principle of command responsibility.






Only Atty. Inocentes has elected to contest the resolution of the IBP, as he questions the propriety of his being held administratively liable for acts done by Atty. Camano.[2] However, the recommendation to suspend Atty. Camano shall also be passed upon by virtue of Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.[3]






Attys. Inocentes and Camano were both engaged in the practice of law under the firm name of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office. Atty. Inocentes held office in his home located at No. 19 Marunong St., Central District, Quezon City, while Atty. Camano was stationed at an “extension office” of the firm located in 3rd/F, 956 Aurora Blvd., Quirino Dist., Quezon City.






The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Andres and Ludivina Genito (spouses Genito), owners of an apartment complex (the Genito Apartments) located at 259 Tandang Sora cor. Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on 9 July 1986.[4] The law office represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan, and subsequently, with authority from the PCGG.[5] in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments.[6]






Complainant’s sister, Gliceria Solatan, was a tenant in Door 10, Phase B of the Genito Apartments. It appears from the records that Gliceria Solatan left for the United States in 1986, and since then, the apartment was either intermittently used by members of her family or placed under the charge of caretakers.[7] In August 1987, a complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against Gliceria Solatan.[8] On 3 March 1988, in a judgment by default, a Decision[9] was rendered ordering Gliceria Solatan to vacate the premises of the apartment, pay the spouses Genito the amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P30,600.00) as unpaid rentals from February 1986 to July 1987 with interest at 24% per annum from 20 August 1987 until the premises are vacated, Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit.[10]






Complainant was occupying the subject apartment when he learned of the judgment rendered against his sister. On 10 May 1988, prior to the implementation of a writ to execute the judgment, complainant and his mother, Elvira Solatan, approached Atty. Inocentes at his home office. Complainant informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a lease contract by virtue of which complainant would be the new lessee of the apartment and thus make possible his continued stay therein. Atty. Inocentes referred complainant and his mother to his associate, Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of the ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito apartments. After the exchange, complainant went to Atty. Camano at the satellite office of Atty. Inocentes’s firm. From here on out, events quickly turned sour. Different versions of subsequent events were presented. The facts reproduced hereunder are by and large culled from the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, Siegfred B. Mison.






During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which complainant and his mother agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of Gliceria Solatan, including fifty percent of the awarded attorney’s fees and One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P1,600.00) as costs of suit provided that Atty. Camano would allow complainant’s continued stay at Door 10, Phase B of the Genito Apartments. As partial compliance with the agreement, complainant issued in the name Atty. Camano a check for Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) representing half of the P10,000.00 attorney’s fees adjudged against complainant’s sister.






Complainant and his mother failed to make any other payment. Thus, the sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano and some policemen, enforced the writ of execution on 22 June 1988 and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. An attempt at renegotiation took place at the insistence of complainant, resulting in Atty. Camano’s acquiescence to release the levied properties and allowing complainant to remain at the apartment, subject to the latter’s payment of costs incurred in enforcing the writ of execution and issuance of postdated checks representing installment rental payments. Complainant, thus, issued four (4) checks drawn on Far East Bank and Trust Company dated the fifteenth (15th) of July, August, September, and October 1988 each in the amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P3,400.00).[11] Half of the amount represented complainant’s monthly rental, while the other half, a monthly installment for the payment of Gliceria Solatan’s judgment debt.






On 28 June 1988, acting on the advice of Atty. Camano, complainant presented an Affidavit of Ownership to the sheriff who then released the levied items to complainant. However, a Northern Hill 3-burner gas stove was not retuned to complainant. The stove was in fact kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments wherein he temporarily stayed[12] and, thereafter, turned over the same to a certain Recto Esberto, caretaker of the Genito Apartments.[13]














On 1 August 1988, complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Inocentes and Atty. Camano.[14] After formal investigation, and despite conflicting testimonies on the tenor and content of agreements and conversations, several disturbing facts were revealed to have been uncontroverted—Atty. Camano’s acceptance from complainant of attorney’s fees and the costs of implementing the writ of execution, possession of complainant’s levied Northern Hill oven, and advice to complainant on how to recover the latter’s levied items. Thus, IBP Investigating Commissioner Siegfred B. Mison, made the following recommendations, viz:






Based on the facts revealed in their respective Memoranda, the penalty of six (6) months suspension is therefore recommended to be imposed on Respondent Camano for committing the following acts that adversely reflects (sic) on his moral fitness to continue to practice law[:]






1. He received money (P5,000 then P1,000) from the adverse party purportedly for attorneys fees and for reimbursement of sheriff’s expenses. Such act of accepting funds from the adverse party in the process of implementing a writ, borders on technical extortion particularly in light of the factual circumstances as discussed.






2. He gave unsolicited advice to the adverse party in suggesting the filing of an Affidavit of Ownership over the levied properties, a suggestion evidently in conflict with [the interest of] his own client, supposedly, the Genitos.






3. He failed to turn over the gas stove to either party thereby casting doubt as to the procedure of the levy.










Based on the facts revealed, the penalty of Reprimand is therefore recommended to be imposed on Respondent Inocentes for committing the following acts that adversely reflects (sic) in his fitness to continue to practice law[:]






1. He allowed Camano to perform all the aforementioned acts, either by negligence or inadvertence which are inimical to the legal profession. He cannot claim ignorance or feign innocence in this particular transaction considering that the Complainants themselves went to his office on different occasions regarding this transaction. Ultimately, he exercised command responsibility over the case and had supervisory control over Respondent Camano inasmuch as he received periodic reports either by phone or in person from the latter.






2. The letter disclaimer executed by Mr. Genito filed by Respondent Inocentes does not mitigate any liability whatsoever since the wrongdoing done against the profession cannot be undone by a mere letter from a third party.[15] (Emphasis supplied.)






The IBP Board of Governors approved the aforequoted recommendation, with the modification of an increase in Atty. Camano’s period of suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year, in a resolution stating, viz:






RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the of the Investigating Commissioner…finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification, and for accepting funds from adverse party in the process of implementing a writ borders on technical extortion, for giving unsolicited advice to the adverse party a suggestion evidently in conflict with [the interest of] his own client and for casting doubts to the procedure of the levy, Atty. Jose C. Camano is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, likewise, Atty. Oscar Inocentes is hereby REPRIMANDED for he exercised command responsibility over the case inasmuch as he received periodic reports either by phone or in person.[16]










The IBP held that Atty. Camano’s act of giving unsolicited advice to complainant is a culpable act because the advice conflicted with the interest of his clients, the spouses Genito. The rule on conflicting interests, established in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, deals with conflicts in the interests of an attorney’s actual clients among themselves, of existing and prospective clients, and of the attorney and his clients. It states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.






















The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained.[17] An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained.[18] To establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession.[19] At the time the questioned statement was made, Atty. Camano had called the police to restrain complainant from surreptitiously pulling out the levied properties from the apartment complex by virtue of which the latter was brought to the police station for questioning. The statement was made in response to complainant’s insistence at the police station that the levied properties were owned by him and not by the judgment debtor.[20] No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case.






More fitting, albeit, to the mind of this Court, inapplicable to the case, is Canon 15 of the same Code which encompasses the aforementioned rule. In general terms, Canon 15 requires lawyers to observe loyalty in all


dealings and transactions with their clients.[21] Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, far be it that every utterance of an attorney which may have afforded an individual some relief adverse to the former’s client may be labeled as a culpable act of disloyalty. As in every case, the acts alleged to be culpable must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances.






While the levy was made on chattel found in the apartment of the judgment debtor, Gliceria Solatan, the complainant was the true owner of the properties. Consequently, the latter had a right to recover the same. In fact, considering the circumstances, the questioned statement is in consonance with complainant’s foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of the court. The statement of Atty. Camano in such a context should not be construed by this Court as giving advice in conflict against the interest of the spouses Genito as in fact the latter have no interest over the incorrectly levied properties.


























We, thus, note that the act of informing complainant that the levied properties would be returned to him upon showing proof of his ownership thereof may hint at infidelity to the interest of the spouses Genito, but, in this circumstance, lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal of the latter’s confidence so as to deserve outright categorization as infidelity or disloyalty to his clients’ cause. Nonetheless, after having noted the foregoing, we remain convinced with the propriety of meting the one (1) year suspension from the practice of law on Atty. Camano, as recommended by the IBP, based on his other culpable acts which tend to degrade the profession and foment distrust in the integrity of court processes.






On the other hand, Atty. Inocentes seeks to distance himself from the events that transpired and the reprimand resulting therefrom by asserting that he was incorrectly punished for Atty. Camano’s acts when his mere participation in the fiasco was to refer complainant and his mother to Atty. Camano.






However, it is precisely because of such participation, consisting as it did of referring the complainant to his associate lawyer, that Atty. Inocentes may be held administratively liable by virtue of his associate’s unethical acts. His failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. The term “command responsibility,” as Atty. Inocentes suggests, has special meaning within the circle of men in uniform in the military; however, the principle does not abide solely therein. It controls the very circumstance in which Atty. Inocentes found himself.






We are not unaware of the custom of practitioners in a law firm of assigning cases and even entire client accounts to associates or other partners with limited supervision, if at all. This is especially true in the case of Attys. Inocentes and Camano who, from the records, both appear to be seasoned enough to be left alone in their work without requiring close supervision over each other’s conduct and work output. However, let it not be said that law firm practitioners are given a free hand to assign cases to seasoned attorneys and thereafter conveniently forget about the case. To do so would be a disservice to the profession, the integrity and advancement of which this Court must jealously protect.






That the firm name under which the two attorneys labored was that of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office does not automatically make Atty. Inocentes the default lawyer acting in a supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano. It did, however, behoove Atty. Inocentes to exert ordinary diligence to find out what was going on in his law firm. It placed in Atty. Inocentes the active responsibility to inquire further into the circumstances affecting the levy of complainant’s properties, irrespective of whether the same were in fact events which could possibly lead to administrative liability. Moreover, as name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility.[22] It is not without reason or consequence that Atty. Inocentes’s name is that which was used as the official designation of their law office.






With regard to the actual existence of Atty. Inocentes’s supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano’s activities, the IBP Investigating Commissioner based the same on his finding that Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter’s dealings with complainant. This finding is the linchpin of Atty. Inocentes’s supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof.






















Law practitioners are acutely aware of the responsibilities that are naturally taken on by partners and supervisory lawyers over the lawyers and non-lawyers of the law office. We have held that lawyers are administratively liable for the conduct of their employees in failing to timely file pleadings.[23] In Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al.,[24] partners in a law office were admonished for the contemptuous language in a pleading submitted to court despite, and even due to, the fact that the pleading was not passed upon by any of the partners of the office. We held therein that partners are duty bound to provide for efficacious control of court pleadings and other court papers that carry their names or the name of the law firm.[25]






We now hold further that partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. Nonetheless, the liability of the supervising lawyer in this regard is by no means equivalent to that of the recalcitrant lawyer. The actual degree of control and supervision exercised by said supervising lawyer varies, inter alia, according to office practice, or the length of experience and competence of the lawyer supervised. Such factors can be taken into account in ascertaining the proper penalty. Certainly, a lawyer charged with the supervision of a fledgling attorney prone to rookie mistakes should bear greater responsibility for the culpable acts of the underling than one satisfied enough with the work and professional ethic of the associate so as to leave the latter mostly to his/her own devises.






While Atty. Camano’s irregular acts perhaps evince a need for greater supervision of his legal practice, there is no question that it has been Atty. Inocentes’ practice to allow wide discretion for Atty. Camano to practice on his own. It does constitute indifference and neglect for Atty. Inocentes to fail to accord even a token attention to Atty. Camano’s conduct which could have brought the then impending problem to light. But such is not equivalent to the proximate responsibility for Atty. Camano’s acts. Moreover, it appears from the records that Atty. Inocentes is a former judge and a lawyer who, as of yet, is in good standing and it is the first time in which Atty. Inocentes has been made to answer vicariously for the misconduct of a person under his charge. An admonition is appropriate under the circumstances.










WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution dated 16 April 2004 is AFFIRMED in respect of the sanction meted out on Atty. Camano. Atty. Inocentes is hereby ADMONISHED to monitor more closely the activities of his associates to make sure that the same are in consonance with the Code of Professional Responsibility with the WARNING that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt with more severely.






No pronouncement as to costs.






SO ORDERED.














DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice










WE CONCUR:


















REYNATO S. PUNO


Associate Justice


Chairman






































MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ


Associate Justice


































ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.


Associate Justice


















MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO


Associate Justice














________________________________________






[1]In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-231 dated 16 April 2004 for CBD Case No. 019 entitled George C. Solatan v. Atty. Oscar A. Inocentes and Atty. Jose C. Camano, Rollo, pp. 703-704.






[2]Petition dated 28 July 2004, Rollo, p. 712-724.






[3]Sec. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. – … (b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.






[4]Rollo, p. 6. See also p. 25.






[5]Id. at 79.






[6]Id. at 25, 70, and 78. See also p. 78.






[7]Id. at 409-414.






[8]Entitled “Sps. Andres V. Genito & Ludivina L. Genito v. Gliceria Solatan,” docketed as Civil Case No. 51745.






[9]Dated 3 March 1988 rendered by Judge Ricardo A. Buenviaje of MTC Quezon City, Branch 38.






[10]Rollo, pp. 77-78.






[11]See Rollo, p. 58.






[12]Id. at 581 and 624.






[13]Id. at 581 and 624.










[14]Id. at 136-150.






[15]Id. at 708-709.






[16]Supra note 1 at 703.






[17]RUBEN E. AGPALO, COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, 2001 Ed., p. 138, citing Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 174 U.S. 412 (1899).






[18]Id. at 138-39.






[19]Id. at 139.






[20]Rollo, p. 578.






[21]Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.






[22]Many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted Section 5.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which relevantly requires, first, that partners make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has measures in effect to assure that all lawyers in the form conform to the rules of professional conduct, and second, that a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to these rules. This explicit responsibility was incorporated by some states in the late 1990’s but was in theory already being applied by several jurisdictions. See ZITRIN, RICHARD A., and LANGFORD, CAROL M., LEGAL ETHICS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, 2ND Ed., p. 658; see also http:www.mass.gov/obcbbo/supervise.htm.






[23]Adaza v. Barinaga, 192 Phil. 198 (1981).






[24]G.R. No. L-22979, 26 June 1967, 20 SCRA 441.






[25]Id. at 446.