Title
Ziga vs. Arejola
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1318
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2004
Judge Ramon A. Arejola was reprimanded for not correcting a misspelled name in a land registration case, underscoring the legal profession's need for honesty and integrity.
Font Size

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1318)

Facts:

  • Nelia A. Ziga filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ramon A. Arejola on May 30, 1997.
  • The complaint stemmed from Judge Arejola's alleged failure to protect Ziga's interests in a land registration case (LRC No. 95-142) in the RTC of Naga City, Branch 23.
  • Ziga, a co-heir of Fabiana Arejola, claimed that Judge Arejola neglected to correct the misspelling of her name in the court's decision, where it was incorrectly recorded as "Lilia" instead of "Nelia."
  • The error was perpetuated in a Deed of Absolute Sale prepared by Judge Arejola, which also used the incorrect name.
  • Despite being aware of the mistake and receiving a request from the City Attorney of Naga City to correct it, Judge Arejola failed to act.
  • Ziga was forced to file an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Correction, which the RTC granted on March 12, 1997.
  • Judge Arejola denied any attorney-client relationship with Ziga, claiming he acted only on behalf of himself and his co-heirs.
  • He argued that the misspelling was inconsequential and that the heirs were recognized in the decision.
  • The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which initially recommended clearing Judge Arejola of liability, but the Supreme Court decided to investigate further.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • Yes, Judge Ramon A. Arejola breached his duty as a lawyer by failing to correct the misspelling of Nelia A. Ziga's name.
  • Yes, there was an attorney-client relationship between Nelia A. Ziga and Judge Ramon A. Arejola.
  • Judge Arejola w...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court highlighted that lawyers must adhere to the highest standards of fidelity to their clients and act with diligence and care.
  • The Court established that Judge Arejola had an attorney-client relationship with Ziga, supported by his actions in the land registration case and the Notice of Attorney's Lien he filed.
  • The Court dismissed Judge Arejola's claim of acting solely on behalf of himself and his co-heirs, noting his active representation of...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.