OCA CIRCULARS NO. 53-2002, September 24, 2002

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the decision of the First Division of the Supreme
Court in Administrative Case No. 4354 entitled “Lolita Artezuela vs.
Atty. Ricarte B. Maderazo” dated 22 April 2002, to wit:

“For his failure to meet the exacting standard of
professional ethics, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) in its resolution of May 2, 2000 recommended the
suspension from the practice of law of respondent Atty. Ricarte B.
Maderazo for the period of six months, with stern warning that
repetition of the act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent
allegedly represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 6 of
the Code of Professional Ethics and Cannon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.^[1]

xxx

In administrative cases, the requirement of notice
and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings, as “actual
adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification or when
there is need to propound searching questions to witness who give vague
testimonies.”^[16] Due process
is fulfilled when the parties were given reasonable opportunity to be
heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments.^[17]

In the case at bar, records show that respondent
repeatedly sought postponements of the hearings, prompting the
Investigating Commissioner to receive complaint’s evidence ex-parte and
to set the case for resolution after parties have submitted their
respective memorandum. xxx

xxx

The professional obligation of the lawyer the
lawyer to give his undivided attention and zeal for his client’s cause
likewise demanded in the Code of Professional Responsibility, Inherently
disadvantageous to his clients cause, representation by the lawyer of
conflicting interests require disclosure of all facts and consent of all
its parties involved. xxx

xxx

Finally, we remind the respondent the practice of
law is not a property right but mere privilege, and as such, must bow to
the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the
lawyer’s public responsibilities.^[26]
The suspension of the respondent’s privilege to practice law may result
to financial woes. But as the guardian of the legal profession, we are
constrained to balance this concern with the injury the caused to the
very same profession he vowed to uphold with honesty and fairness.

IN VIEW HEREOF, the Resolution of
the IBP finding the respondent guilty of violating Canon 6 of the Code
of Professional Ethics, and Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility is affirmed. Respondent is suspended from
the practice of law for six (6) months with stern warning that a similar
act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.”

Respondent’s supplement to the motion for
reconsideration of 25 July 2001 and said supplement to respondent’s
motion for reconsideration dated 12 October 2001 were noted in the
resolution dated 22 April 2002. Copy of the said resolution dated 12
October 2001 were noted in the resolution dated 22 April 2002. Copy of
the said resolution was received by respondent on 8 May 2002.

24 September 2002

^[16] Arboleda vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 28 (1999)

^[17] Padilla vs. Sto. Tomas, 243 SCRA 1555 (1995)

^[26] In re: Edillion, 84 SCRA 554 (1978)