Yana, Atalig slapped with $6,900 fine, costs

Attorneys Reynaldo O. Yana and Antonio M. Atalig, who were thrown in jail by Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo for civil contempt, face another hurdle.

Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja is sanctioning the two embattled lawyers to jointly pay a total of $5,900 fine plus $1,000 in judicial costs for their improper conduct in connection with the Angel Malite estate’s probate.

In his order issued Friday, Naraja said it became even more clear at the show-cause hearings that bringing the motions to disqualify him and Govendo in the Malite case was not a calculated exercise of attorney discretion to advance legitimate interests of their client.

Naraja said the motions were a reckless and baseless attempt to disqualify him and Govendo in the two lawyers’ personal interest.

“Beyond Mr. Yana and Atalig’s blatant disregard for elementary procedures and their unsubstantiated legal assertions, they have engaged in personal unjustified attacks upon the integrity of the judges individually and the judiciary in its entirety,” according to the presiding judge.

Worst of all, Naraja noted, the two lawyers have set aside their fiduciary duties to the Malite estate and embarked on what appears to be a desperate personal crusade to avoid or delay impartial review of the legal fees awarded them in the probate—as ordered by the Supreme Court.

Court records show that in October 2007, then Malite estate administrator Jesus C. Tudela, through counsel Yana and Atalig, filed a motion to disqualify and or to recuse Govendo from presiding over the Malite probate.

Naraja assigned the motion to his court. But in September 2007, Tudela, through the two lawyers, also moved to disqualify Naraja from hearing the motion.

Atalig and Yana alleged that Govendo is biased against local customs and traditions, and is prejudiced against Filipinos, Koreans, and Chinese.

With respect to Naraja, Atalig and Yana said the presiding judge should recuse himself from the Malite case because he has no guts to disqualify Govendo.

In the order he issued on Sept. 19, 2007, Naraja denied both motions and ordered the two lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for their conduct.

Naraja said the lawyers’ conducts include failure to include requisite party affidavit when filing the motion and failure to include a certification that the motion was brought in good faith.

The presiding judge also cited the lawyers’ other conducts such as making the motion in an untimely manner and filing it for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay.

In his order issued Friday regarding the sanction issue, Naraja said that Yana and Atalig have embarked on a campaign of conduct which consistently violated the mandates of the Commonwealth Rules of Civil Procedure.

Naraja said many of the violations with respect to the Govendo motion were repeated in the Naraja motion even after their shortcomings were pointed out by opposing counsel.

“Counsels’ absence of preparation, research, and background knowledge of the relatively simple rules governing the disqualification and recusal process was unacceptable,” the judge said.

He pointed out that the bulk of the work done by opposing counsel and the court on the Govendo and Naraja motions could have been easily avoided had Yana and Atalig exerted even a minimal amount of time researching the law in the Commonwealth and familiarizing themselves with the proper process.

“As was clear in the motions themselves (and became crystal clear at the show cause proceedings) Mr. Yana and Mr. Atalig made no such attempt,” Naraja said.