Title
Supreme Court
Vivian A. Rubio vs. Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 13358
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2022
Atty. Caoibes Jr. disbarred for deceit, notarial violations, abusive language, MCLE non-compliance, incorrect Roll numbers, and disregard for IBP orders.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164197)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Complaint
    • Vivian A. Rubio, the complainant, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., alleging violations of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
    • The complaint arose from an incident involving a settlement concerning a case of estafa, where respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the complainant for P4,500.00 but later proposed mediation in return for a substantially larger sum of P200,000.00.
  • Settlement and Payment Controversy
    • Complainant paid P100,000.00 on April 3, 2018, and the balance of P100,000.00 on April 10, 2018, as evidenced by a deposit receipt and acknowledgment receipt.
    • The respondent promised to have the pending cases dismissed upon payment but subsequently refused to sign the Affidavit of Desistance drafted by complainant’s counsel, instead proposing a Combined Affidavit of Admissions and Desistance that would have required complainant to admit guilt.
  • Misconduct in Court Proceedings and Notarial Acts
    • The respondent engaged in various questionable practices, including:
      • Using different Roll of Attorneys numbers in pleadings, which misrepresented his credentials and raised doubts about his compliance with MCLE requirements.
      • Notarizing documents in Calaca, Batangas – a location outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission (which only covered Lemery, Batangas).
    • Evidence showed that respondent’s actions included disrespectful and foul language aimed at judges in his pleadings and motions.
      • Examples include statements against Judge Montes, Judge Silang, and Judge Areta, which were flagged for being offensive and contrary to the dignity required in the judicial forum.
  • Violations of Professional and Ethical Obligations
    • Alleged violations included breaches of the Lawyer’s Oath and multiple provisions of the CPR, notably:
      • Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct).
      • Canon 1, Canon 3, Canon 5, Canon 10, Canon 11, and Canon 12, each addressing professional or ethical responsibilities.
    • The respondent’s failure to file a position paper as mandated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was also noted, further evidencing his disregard for procedural obligations.
  • Previous Misconduct and Disciplinary History
    • The record includes prior instances of misconduct when the respondent was a judge, involving fines and other sanctions for acts like physical altercations and procedural delays.
    • These past disciplinary records were considered in evaluating the gravity of his current transgressions.
  • IBP Investigation and Recommendation
    • An investigating commissioner prepared a Report and Recommendation – finding the respondent guilty of deceiving the complainant, misconduct in his notarial functions, use of improper representations (like misleading roll numbers), and displaying disrespectful language.
    • Although the IBP Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty to an indefinite suspension in view of his age, the severity of the misconduct remained the central issue.

Issues:

  • Whether Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. should be held administratively liable for:
    • Misleading the complainant regarding the settlement of criminal cases by accepting an excessive sum (P200,000.00) and failing to secure the dismissal of the cases.
    • Violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in deceitful and unethical conduct.
    • Using different Roll of Attorneys numbers in his pleadings, thereby misrepresenting his credentials and misleading the courts.
    • Notarizing documents outside the jurisdiction of his notarial commission, in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
    • Employing offensive and intemperate language against judges and court personnel in his pleadings, in breach of the dignity required in the judicial forum.
    • Failing to comply with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements while appearing in court.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.