EN BANC
A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015
NELSON P. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Nelson P. Valdez (Nelson) against Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr. (Atty. Dabon) anchored on the ground of grossly immoral and indecent conduct which transgressed the high moral standards required for membership in the Bar.
The Position of the Complainant
Complainant Nelson charged respondent Atty. Dabon, a Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals (CA), with gross immorality for allegedly carrying on an adulterous relationship with his wife, Sonia Romero Valdez (Sonia), which was made possible by sexual assaults and maintained through threat and intimidation.
In his Affidavit-Complaint,1 dated September 13, 2006, Nelson averred, among others, that he married Sonia on January 28, 1998 in Paniqui, Tarlac; that Sonia was employed as Court Stenographer of the CA from 1992 until her resignation on May 15, 2006;2 that Sonia admitted to have had an adulterous and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon, from 2000 to 2006, a span of more than five years; that he came to know of the relationship only on April 18, 2006 after receiving an anonymous text message hinting/stating about the existence of an illicit affair between the two; and that initially, Sonia denied the affair but eventually broke down and admitted her sexual liaison with Atty. Dabon when confronted with a text message he received from Atty. Jocelyn Dabon (Atty. Joy), the wife of the respondent, on May 4, 2006 at about 9:47 o'clock in the morning, which stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Nelson, Jun and I were separating I will file an annulment anytime soon, although I'm in great pain, I ask for your apology and forgiveness for everything he is leaving for US and I hope he evolves into a strong and mature person there. D cya masamang tao, just emotional and easily manipulated. Sana don't blame him entirely bee. he is d type that never initiate things. He is passive and tame. He was honest with me and I hope Sonia would find d courage to tell d truth to you. I just pray for peace and fresh start for all of us. I just want to go on with my life and use above all these for my son's sake. I love jun and I appeal to you n asana wala ka maisip sa atin lahat. Just as I have accepted everything. Salamat sa panahon at pangunawa. God bless.3cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, this Commissioner, after a thorough and exhaustive review of the facts and applicable legal provisions, recommends that respondent be found guilty of gross immoral conduct and, accordingly, be disbarred and dropped from the Roll of Attorneys.13cralawlawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and finding Respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct, Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr. is hereby DISBARRED and his name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
Sorting out the maze of technicalities, denials and evasions of the respondent as well as the oftentimes exaggerated language of complainant or his wife, Sonia, and the self-exculpatory declarations of Sonia, this Commissioner considers the following facts as established:cralawlawlibrary
- Respondent and Sonia are both married, not to each other, but to other persons, and each is aware of this fact, or should have known such fact at the start of their illicit relationship because they were officemates at that time;
- Respondent and Sonia engaged in an intimate and sexual relationship, intermittent perhaps, for a period of about six years starting 2000 up to 2006;
- Respondent and Sonia, despite protestations of Sonia that respondent assaulted her using drugs and employing threats and blackmail to maintain the relationship, appeared to have entered into such illicit relationship voluntarily and also appeared to have been fueled by their deep emotional needs, if not mutual lust, as shown by the fact that the illicit relationship lasted for six long years;
- Respondent and Sonia, despite the protestation of Sonia to the contrary, were not really ready to give up the illicit relationship even if they were fully aware of its immorality or its devastating effect on their respective marriages and careers as shown by the fact that both respondent and Sonia did not voluntarily confess to their respective spouses their dark secret, but were only discovered by complainant through other channels.23
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.cralawlawlibrary
Xxx. "When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the administration of justice by requiring those who carry out this important function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular sanction that it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the public.
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer's unfitness to continue in the practice of law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the offense should also be considered.cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 3-5.
2 Id. at 6.
3 As quoted in the complaint, rollo, Vol. I, p. 4.
4 Id. at 7-13.
5 Id. at 27-30.
6 Id. at 31-32.
7 Id. at 33-34.
8 Id. at 98-125.
9 Id. at 107,
10Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 302-304.
11Rollo, Vol. I, p. 166.
12Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 197-204.
13 Id. at 204.
14 Id. at 196.
15Rollo, Vol. VI, p. 521.
16Tiong v. Florendo, 678 Phil. 195 (2011).
17Ui v. Bonifacio, 388 Phil. 691, 708 (2000).
18 590 Phil. 270 (2008).
19Abella v. Barrios, A.C. No. 7332, June 18, 2013, 698 SCRA 683, 692.
20Guevarra v. Eala, 555 Phil. 713, 724 (2007).
21 Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 305-308.
22Rollo, Vol. II, p. 201.
23 Id. at 201-202.
24 Ui v. Bonifacio, supra note 17, at 706.
25Figueroa v. Barranca, Jr., 342 Phil. 408, 412 (1997).
26Zaguirre v. Castillo, 446 Phil. 861, 867 (2003).
27Vitug v. Rongcal, 532 Phil. 615, 626-627 (2006).
28 546 Phil. 431, 446-447 (2007).
29Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., 538 Phil. 501, 517 (2006).
30Re: Initial Report on the Grenade Incident, 419 Phil. 267 (2001).
31 259 Phil. 278,283(1989).
32 117 Phil. 768, 776 (1963).
33 213 Phil. 437, 440(1984).
34 481 Phil. 646 (2004).
35 482 Phil. 64 (2004).
36 A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012, 676 SCRA 37.cralawlawlibraryCONCURRING OPINION LEONEN, J.:
This court resolves an administrative Complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Nelson P. Valdez (Nelson) against respondent Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr., (Atty. Dabon) for gross immoral and indecent conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.1
Nelson claims that he and his wife, Sonia Romero Valdez (Sonia), were married on January 28, 1998 in Paniqui, Tarlac.2 Sonia was a Court Stenographer at the Court of Appeals from 1992 to 2006.3 She admitted that she had an adulterous and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon, a Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, from 2000 to 2006.4 According to Nelson, Sonia told him that the illicit affair was carried out through Atty. Dabon's sexual assaults, intimidation, and threats on Sonia.5
Sonia's affidavit was attached to Nelson's Complaint. In her affidavit, Sonia claims that her sexual relationship with Atty. Dabon started when they had a friendly lunch date on November 13, 2000.6 Unknown to her, Atty. Dabon put a sleep-inducing substance in either her food or drink, which caused her to feel drowsy and weak.7 Atty. Dabon then brought her to a motel and took advantage of her.8 He sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious.9
Sonia felt ashamed of what had happened; thus, she kept the incident to herself.10 She also feared the ramifications of the incident on her and her family.11 Sonia asked Atty. Dabon to forget about the incident and leave her alone. However, Atty. Dabon threatened her that he would tell everyone they knew about it.12 From then on, Atty. Dabon was successful in having carnal knowledge with her once to twice a week.13 This went on for several years.14
In March 2006, Sonia ended her affair with Atty. Dabon.15 This resulted in a series of unpleasant occasions where Sonia and Atty. Dabon publicly clashed in a motel and inside the Court of Appeals and involved other employees of the judiciary as well as their spouses.16
For his part, Atty. Dabon denies the allegations in the Complaint. He denies the acts constituting gross immoral conduct imputed by Nelson and Sonia. He also denies being attracted to Sonia and drugging and sexually assaulting her.17 At most, they were just good friends.18 Atty. Dabon also points to the alleged inconsistencies in the claims of Sonia and her husband.19 Sonia's true feelings for him are evident in the cards she signed and sent to him, together with the expensive gifts such as signature shoes, watches, and shirts she gave him.20 Sonia even spent time in the United States with him and his sons.21
Atty. Dabon further alleges that Sonia had become emotionally dependent on him since he was always there to listen to her problems.22 According to Atty. Dabon, Sonia started to act strangely when she learned of his plans to settle in the United States for good.23
Atty. Dabon also claims that Nelson and Sonia are good friends with the Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes as Sonia had worked as Court Stenographer for him for three (3) years.24 The Presiding Justice had allegedly asked Atty. Dabon to resign, else cases would be filed against him.25cralawred
Moreover, contrary to Nelson and Sonia's claims, it was actually Atty. Dabon who was harassed through text messages and phone calls, which prompted him to leave the country earlier than scheduled.26
On August 15, 2007, this court referred the Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation.27
In his October 2, 2008 Report and Recommendation, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner Manuel T. Chan found Atty. Dabon guilty of gross immoral conduct.28 The Commissioner recommended that Atty. Dabon be disbarred and dropped from the Roll of Attorneys.29
On December 11, 2008, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-653, which adopted and approved the recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and finding Respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct, Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr. is hereby DISBARRED and his name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.30cralawlawlibrary
Atty. Dabon filed his motion for reconsideration of the Resolution.31 However, this was denied by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2012-550 dated December 4, 2012:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-653 dated December 11, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.32cralawlawlibrary
I concur with this court's finding that Atty. Dabon is guilty of gross immoral conduct.33
The ponencia declares that Atty. Dabon's illicit relationship with Nelson's wife amounts to gross immoral conduct that transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility,34 thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife showed his moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. It manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, he has fallen below the moral bar. Such detestable behavior warrants a disciplinary sanction. Even if not all forms of extramarital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside of marriage are considered disgraceful and immoral as they manifest deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.35cralawlawlibrary
However, the ponencia also declared that Sonia's claims of sexual assaults, threats, and intimidation are false:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn light of the above disquisition, the Court finds Sonia's allegation that the illicit relationship was made possible by sexual assaults and maintained through threat and intimidations, to be untrue. Certainly, a sexually abused woman could not be expected to lavish her oppressor with expensive gifts or pay him affectionate compliments or words of endearment. The natural reaction of a victim of a sexual molestation would be to avoid her ravisher. In this case, however, it appeared that Sonia continually remained in the company of Atty. Dabon for more than five years, even inviting him for lunch-outs and frequenting his office to bring whenever the latter was preoccupied with his workload and could not go out with her to eat. Verily, Sonia's actuations towards Atty. Dabon are in stark contrast to the expected demeanor of one who had been repeatedly sexually abused.
Further, the Court cannot fathom why Sonia never reported the alleged sexual abuse to the police, if such was the truth. She could have placed the respondent behind bars and put an end to her claimed misery. Also, the Court cannot lend credence to Sonia's claim that she merely succumbed to the respondent's sexual advances because of his continuous threats of public exposure and humiliation. It must be stressed that Atty. Dabon would be in a much more precarious situation if he would carry out such threats, as this would exposed [sic] himself to countless criminal and administrative charges. The Court believes that Nelson's allegation of sexual assaults and continuing threat and intimidation was not established by clear and preponderant evidence. The Court is left with the most logical conclusion that Sonia freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon sans any threat and intimidation.36 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
The relationship between Atty. Dabon and Sonia was consensual. Relationships between men and women traditionally involve power exerted by one against the other. In Garcia v. Drilon,37 this court recognized the unequal power relationship between a man and a woman, justifying the valid classification provided under Republic Act No. 9262:38chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryI. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions.
The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. As Justice Mclntyre succinctly states, "the accommodation of differences . . . is the essence of true equality."A. Unequal power relationship between men and women
According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National Machinery for Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment), violence against women (VAW) is deemed to be closely linked with the unequal power relationship between women and men otherwise known as "gender-based violence". Societal norms and traditions dictate people to think men are the leaders, pursuers, providers, and take on dominant roles in society while women are nurturers, men's companions and supporters, and take on subordinate roles in society. This perception leads to men gaining more power over women. With power comes the need to control to retain that power. And VAW is a form of men's expression of controlling women to retain power.
The United Nations, which has long recognized VAW as a human rights issue, passed its Resolution 48/104 on the Declaration on Elimination of Violence Against Women on December 20, 1993 stating that "violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into subordinate positions, compared with men."39 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary
"Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire - it is about power being exercised by a superior officer over his women subordinates."40 The superior can cause the removal of the subordinate from the workplace if the latter refuses his or, in certain cases, her amorous advances.41 These acts, which necessarily result in an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for subordinates, constitute sexual harassment.42
Under A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary), work-related sexual harassment is defined as an act of:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryan official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the latter.43cralawlawlibrary
It is committed when:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee. It shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following modes:1. Physical, such as malicious touching, overt sexual advances, and gestures with lewd insinuation.(b) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing laws; or
2. Verbal, such as requests or demands for sexual favors, and lurid remarks.
3. Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or written notes with sexual underpinnings.
4. Other acts analogous to the foregoing.
(c) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.44ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
While Sonia was technically not a subordinate of Atty. Dabon, his actions nevertheless resulted in an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for Sonia, especially towards the end of their illicit relationship. The gravity of Atty. Dabon's actions should be considered in determining the proper penalty to be imposed in this disbarment case for gross immoral conduct.
As the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found, Atty. Dabon refused to accept that his relationship with Sonia had already ended, to the point of harassing Sonia publicly several times:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIt has not escaped the Court's attention either that Atty. Dabon really tried hard to win back Sonia because he could not let go of their relationship, even to the point of pestering her with his persistent pleas of reconciliation. In one instance, Atty. Dabon boarded Sonia's car and refused to alight unless she would talk to him. Sonia had to seek the assistance of her officemates, Atty. Barrazo and Atty. Ligot, who pleaded with him to alight from the vehicle. Moreover, Atty. Dabon made several attempts to communicate with Sonia in the hope of rekindling their relationship through letters and phone calls but she remained firm in her stand to avoid him. Such incident was recounted by Ramos and Minerva in their respective affidavits. Incidentally, vis-a-vis Nelson's overwhelming evidence of said harassments, he offered only denials which was [sic] self-serving and weak under the law on evidence. Other than his general claim that Atty. Barrazo, Atty. Ligot, Ramos, and Minerva were biased witnesses because they were former officemates of Sonia, the respondent did not even bother to proffer his own version of the supposed harassment incidents.45cralawlawlibrary
Conduct is immoral when it is "so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community."46 Further:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary[The] conduct [to warrant disciplinary action] must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. . . . [I]t must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency."47cralawlawlibrary
Good moral character is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession.48 "It is the bounden duty of law practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar."49
There is no fixed standard of what constitutes gross immoral conduct, or "moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar."50 Hence, "what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment."51
Disbarment is clearly warranted for gross immoral conduct that entails abuse of power of whatever kind or nature.
In Barrientos v. Daarol,52 the respondent was held guilty of gross immoral conduct and was disbarred for inducing a female half his age to have sexual relations with him after promising marriage, despite him being married already, and later on abandoning the woman and his child.
In Tucay v. Tucay,53 this court held that having an illicit affair with a married woman, regardless of whether a bigamous marriage was contracted, constitutes gross immoral conduct that merits the extreme penalty of disbarment.
In Arnobit v. Arnobit,54 this court disbarred the respondent for abandoning his wife and 12 children to cohabit with another woman.
In Garrido v. Garrido,55 two lawyers who engaged in an extra-marital affair were disbarred since their actions established a "pattern of grave and immoral misconduct that demonstrates their lack of mental and emotional fitness and moral character to qualify them for the responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court."56
In his Comment, Atty. Dabon averred that there could not have been an illicit affair between him and Sonia since Sonia was merely "an ordinary plain-looking middle aged woman with two (2) teen aged children."57 He alleged that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIt is an outrage for herein respondent for the complainant and Ms. Valdez to accuse him of sexually assaulting the latter. There is absolutely no iota of truth to this incredible claim of the Valdezes. Why would a man like the respondent, a married lawyer at that with no prior encounter with the law, would suddenly turn crazed with lust despite the aloofness and coldness of Ms. Valdez towards him as alleged in her affidavit, drugging her— then dragging her to his car and sexually assaulting her in a motel? Is Ms. Valdez that irresistibly attractive and compelling that would turn the respondent into an unthinking sex pervert and criminal, risking everything just to get her to satisfy his alleged lust for her?58 (Emphasis in the original)
cralawlawlibrary
This statement is nothing but an attempt to obviate the consequence of his actions by degrading the appearance of another human being. This strongly reveals Atty. Dabon's character and the extent to which he is willing to go to gain impunity for his infractions.
Atty. Dabon carried out illicit relations with Sonia, a married woman and his co-worker in the judiciary, for at least five (5) years. Atty. Dabon's blase attitude towards the affair and its aftermath not only made a mockery of the position he holds as member of the bar and an employee of the judiciary, but also showed his utter disregard for laws protecting and respecting the dignity of women. He failed to meet the high standard of morality required of his profession. He is unfit to be a member of the bar.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote that respondent Atty. Antolin Allyson Dabon, Jr. be DISBARRED and his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.Endnotes:
1 Ponencia, p. 1.
2Rollo, p. 3 and 6, Affidavit.
3 Id. at 3, Affidavit, and 526, Report and Recommendation of the IBP.
4 Id. at 3-4, Affidavit and 525-526, Report and Recommendation of the IBP.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 8, Affidavit.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 8-9, Affidavit.
12 Id. at 9.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 10.
16 Id. at 10-12.
17 Id. at 107-108, Comment.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 109, Comment.
20 Id. at 109-110.
21 Id. at 113.
22 Id. at 112.
23 Id. at 114.
24 Id. at 115.
25 Id. at 116.
26 Id. at 118.
27 Id. at 166.
28 Id. at 523-530.
29 Id. at 530.
30 Id. at 522.
31 Id. at 536-555.
32 Id. at 521.
33 Ponencia, p. 13.
34 See CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03.
35 Ponencia, p. 11.
36 Id. at 9.
37 G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 352 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Bane].
38 Rep. Act No. 9262 is entitled An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, And For Other Purposes.
39Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 352, 411-412 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
40 Palste v. Mamenta, Jr., 459 Phil. 10, 24 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
41 Id.
42 See Floralde v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 146, 150 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, En Banc].
43 A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (2004), sec. 3.
44 A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (2004), sec. 4.
45 Ponencia, pp. 8-9.
46Zaguirre v. Castillo, 446 Phil. 861, 867 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Narag v. Narag, 353 Phil. 643, 655 (1998) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
47 Id.
48Tiong v. Florendo, 678 Phil. 195, 199 (2011) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Third Division].
49 Id. at 199-200.
50Advincula v. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431, 442 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
51 Id. at 443.
52 A.C. No. 1512 (Resolution), January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 30 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
53 376 Phil. 336 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
54 590 Phil. 270 (2008) [Per Curiam, En Bane].
55 625 Phil. 347 (2010) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
56 Id. at 366.
57Rollo, p. 107.
58 Id. at 108.