Case Digest (A.C. No. 3277)
Facts:
- Petitioners: David P. Fornilda, Juan P. Fornilda, Emilia P. Fornilda Olili, Leocadia P. Fornilda Labayen, and Angela P. Fornilda Gutierrez.
- Respondents: Branch 164 of the Regional Trial Court of the IVth Judicial Region in Pasig, Deputy Sheriff Joaquin C. Antonil, and Atty. Sergio I. Amonoy.
- Background: Supreme Court decision on October 5, 1988, in G.R. No. 72306, directed Atty. Amonoy to respond to malpractice allegations.
- Allegations against Atty. Amonoy included:
- Harassment of Leocadia Fornilda using Tanay Rural Bank, Eastern Rizal Bank, and Tanay Police Station.
- Conspiracy with Atty. Jose Tiburcio to mishandle the petitioners' case.
- Failure to inform heirs of Julio Catolos about their case status.
- Violation of Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code by acquiring properties involved in litigation.
- Atty. Amonoy submitted an Answer and an Amended Answer; the case was assigned docket number A.C. No. 3277.
- The lower court found Atty. Amonoy rebutted the first three allegations but acknowledged a potential violation of Article 1491(5).
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court found no substantiation for the allegations of harassment, conspiracy, and failure to inform; thus, Atty. Amonoy was not held accountable for these claims.
- The court recognized a violation of Article 1491(5) regarding property acquisition but did not impos...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court's decision was based on insufficient evidence for the first three allegations against Atty. Amonoy.
- The petitioners did not provide adequate proof of harassment or...continue reading
Case Digest (A.C. No. 3277)
Facts:
The case involves David P. Fornilda, Juan P. Fornilda, Emilia P. Fornilda Olili, Leocadia P. Fornilda Labayen, and Angela P. Fornilda Gutierrez as petitioners against the Branch 164 of the Regional Trial Court of the IVth Judicial Region in Pasig, Deputy Sheriff Joaquin C. Antonil, and Atty. Sergio I. Amonoy as respondents. The events leading to this case began with a previous decision by the Supreme Court on October 5, 1988, in G.R. No. 72306, which included a directive for Atty. Amonoy to respond to allegations of malpractice raised by the petitioners. The petitioners accused Atty. Amonoy of using the Tanay Rural Bank, Eastern Rizal Bank, and the Tanay Police Station to harass Leocadia Fornilda. They also alleged that Atty. Amonoy conspired with Atty. Jose Tiburcio, who represented the petitioners, to mishandle their case. Furthermore, they claimed that Atty. Amonoy, while acting as counsel for the heirs of Julio Catolos in Special Proceedings No. 3103, failed to inform them about the true status of their case. The petitioners also raised the issue of whether Atty. Amonoy violated Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code by acquiring properties involved in the litigation. Atty. Amonoy submitted an Answer and an Amended Answer to the allegations, and the case was assigned a new docket number, A.C. No. 3277. The l...