8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

1/11

Canon 11

In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen fled a Petition to Surrender the Lawyers Certifcate o Title to the

Sureme Court as a si!n o his rotest as a!ainst to what he call a tri"unal eoled "y eole

who are calloused to our leas or #ustice$. %e also e&ressed stron! words as a!ainst the

#udiciary li'e #ustice$ is not only "lind( "ut also dea and dum". . The etition rooted rom the

case he lost due to the a"sence o time and lace in his motion in the trial court. %is aealwas dismissed in the Court o Aeals "y reason o #urisrudence. )n a etition or certiorari in

the Sureme Court( it was a!ain dismissed thru a minute resolution. *ith the disaointments(

he thou!ht o this sacrifcial mo+e. %e claimed that this etition to surrender his title is only in

trust( and that he may o"tain the title a!ain as soon as he re!ained confdence in the #ustice

system.

ISSUE:

*hether or not Atty. Almacen should "e !i+en discilinary actions or his acts.

HELD:

,-S. )ndefnite susension imosed.

RATIO:

)t has "een ointed out "y the Sureme Court that there is no one to "lame "ut Atty. Almacen

himsel "ecause o his ne!li!ence. -+en i the intentions o his accusations are so no"le( in

sea'in! o the truth and alle!ed in#ustices( so as not to condemn the sinners "ut the sin( it has

already caused enou!h dama!e and disreute to the #udiciary. Since this articular case is sui

!eneris in its nature( a num"er o orei!n and local #urisrudence in analo!ous cases were cited

as "enchmar's and reerences. etween dis"arment and susension( the latter was imosed.

)ndefnite susension may only "e lited until urther orders( ater Atty. Almacen may "e a"le to

ro+e that he is a!ain ft to resume the ractice o law. /or( mem"ershi in the ar imoses

uon a erson o"li!ations and duties which are not mere 0u& and erment. %is in+estiture intothe le!al roession laces uon his shoulders no "urden more "asic( more e&actin! and more

imerati+e than that o resectul "eha+ior toward the courts. %e +ows solemnly to conduct

himsel 1with all !ood fdelity ... to the courts2 and the Rules o Court constantly remind him 1to

o"ser+e and maintain the resect due to courts o #ustice and #udicial o3cers.1 The frst canon

o le!al ethics en#oins him 1to maintain towards the courts a resectul attitude( not or the

sa'e o the temorary incum"ent o the #udicial o3ce( "ut or the maintenance o its sureme

imortance.1

Wicke !" Acan#el

FACTS:

)t aears that on 4o+ 56( 5778( *ic'er9s counsel( Atty. Rayos( fled a motion see'in! the

inhi"ition o the resondent :ud!e Arcan!el rom the case. Resondent #ud!e ound o;ense in

the alle!ations on the motion or inhi"ition fled "y comlainants( and in an order( held them

!uilty o direct contemt and sentenced each to su;er imrisonment or f+e days and to

ay a fne o P5??.??. Petitioners fled a motion or reconsideration( which resondent #ud!e

denied or lac' o merit in his order o @ec 5( 5778.

HELD

The ower to unish or contemt is to "e e&ercised on the reser+ati+e and not on the

+indicti+e rincile. Bnly occasionally should it "e in+o'ed to reser+e that resect without

which the administration o #ustice will ail. Consistent with the ore!oin! rinciles and "ased

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

2/11

on the a"o+ementioned acts( the Court sustains :ud!e Arcan!el9s fndin! that etitioners are

!uilty o contemt. Atty. Rayos( howe+er( cannot e+ade resonsi"ility or the alle!ations in

uestion. As a lawyer( he is not #ust an instrument o his client. %is client came to him or

roessional assistance in the reresentation o a cause( and while he owed him wholeDsouled

de+otion( there were "ounds set "y his resonsi"ility as a lawyer which he could not o+erste.

ased on Canon 55 o the Code o Proessional Resonsi"ility( Atty. Rayos "ears as much

resonsi"ility or the contemtuous alle!ations in the motion or inhi"ition as his client. Atty.

Rayos9 duty to the courts is not secondary to that o his client. The Code o Proessional

Resonsi"ility en#oins him to 1o"ser+e and maintain the resect due to the courts and to

#udicial o3cers and EtoF insist on similar conduct "y others1 and 1not EtoF attri"ute to a :ud!emoti+es not suorted "y the record or ha+e materiality to the case.1

Re: Le$$e o% U& La' Fac(l$)

FACTS:

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

3/11

*ac(li !" *a$$(n#

FACTS

:ud!e aculi( Presidin! :ud!e o Gunicial TrialCourt in Cities( ranch H( Tu!ue!arao City( fled a

comlaint or dis"arment a!ainst Atty. attun!. %e claimed that on :uly HI( H??6( durin! the

hearin! on the motion or reconsideration o Ci+il Case 4o. H=?H( the resondent was shoutin!

while ar!uin! his motion. :ud!e aculi ad+ised him to tone down his +oice "ut instead( the

resondent shouted at the to o his +oice. *hen warned that he would "e cited or direct

contemt( the resondent shouted( Then cite meJ:ud!e aculi cited him or direct contemt

and imosed a fne o P5??.??. The resondent then let.

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

4/11

*hile other cases were "ein! heard( the resondent reDentered the courtroom and shouted(

:ud!e( ) will fle !ross i!norance a!ainst youJ ) am not araid o youJ :ud!e aculi cited him or

direct contemt o court or the second time. Ater his hearin!s( resondent a!ain shouted in a

threatenin! tone( :ud!e( ) will fle !ross i!norance a!ainst youJ ) am not araid o youJ %e 'et

on shoutin!( ) am not araid o youJ and challen!ed the #ud!e to a f!ht. Sta; and lawyers

escorted him out o the "uildin!. :ud!e aculi later ound out that ater the resondent let the

courtroom( Atty. attun! continued shoutin! and unched a ta"le at the B3ce o the Cler' oCourt.

ISSUE:

@id Atty. attun! +iolate Cannons 55 and 5H o the Code o Proessional Resonsi"ilityK

HELD:

)P Commissioner ound that the resondent ailed to o"ser+e Canon 55 o the Code o

Proessional Resonsi"ility that reuires a lawyer to o"ser+e and maintain resect due the

courts and #udicial o3cers. The resondent also +iolated Rule 55.?8 o Canon 55 that ro+ides

that a lawyer shall a"stain rom scandalous( o;ensi+e or menacin! lan!ua!e or "eha+ior "eore

the courts. The resondents ar!ument that :ud!e aculi ro+o'ed him to shout should not "e

!i+en due consideration since the resondent should not ha+e shouted at the residin! #ud!e2

"y doin! so( he created the imression that disresect o a #ud!e could "e tolerated. @e la

Rama recommended that the resondent "e susended rom the ractice o law or si&

months. The Sureme Court held that liti!ants and counsels( articularly the latter "ecause o

their osition and a+owed duty to the courts( cannot "e allowed to u"licly ridicule( demean

and disresect a #ud!e( and the court that he reresents. A lawyer who insults a #ud!e inside a

courtroom comletely disre!ards the latters role( stature and osition in our #ustice system.

*hen the resondent u"licly "erated and "raMenly threatened :ud!e aculi that he would fle

a case or !ross i!norance o the law a!ainst the latter( the resondent e;ecti+ely acted in a

manner tendin! to erode the u"lic confdence in :ud!e aculis cometence and in his a"ility

to decide cases. )ncometence is a matter that( e+en i true( must "e handled with sensiti+ity in

the manner ro+ided under the Rules o Court2 an o"#ectin! or comlainin! lawyer cannot act in

a manner that uts the courts in a "ad li!ht and "rin! the #ustice system into disreute. Atty.

attun! was ordered susended rom the ractice o law or one year with a warnin! that a

reetition o a similar o;ense shall "e dealt with more se+erely.

+(#e Ce!an$e- !" A$$) Sa.io

FACTS:

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

5/11

/acea !" Om.("man

FACTS:Resondent 4aoleon A"iera o PAB fled a comlaint "eore the B3ce o the

Bm"udsman a!ainst etitioner RTC :ud!e oniacio SanM Gaceda. Resondent A"iera alle!ed

that etitioner Gaceda has alsifed his certifcate o ser+ice "y certiyin! that all ci+il and

criminal cases which ha+e "een su"mitted or decision or a eriod o 7? days ha+e "een

determined and decided on or "eore :anuary 85( 5767( when in truth and in act( etitioner

Gaceda 'new that no decision had "een rendered in = ci+il and 5? criminal cases that ha+e

"een su"mitted or decision. Resondent A"iera alle!ed that etitioner Gaceda alsifed hiscertifcates o ser+ice or 5 months.

I""(e:*hether or not the in+esti!ation made "y the Bm"udsman constitutes an

encroachment into the SCs constitutional duty o suer+ision o+er all inerior courts

Hel:A #ud!e who alsifes his certifcate o ser+ice is administrati+ely lia"le to the SC or

serious misconduct and under Sec. 5( Rule 5I? o the Rules o Court( and criminally lia"le to the

State under the Re+ised Penal Code or his elonious act.

)n the a"sence o any administrati+e action ta'en a!ainst him "y the Court with re!ard to his

certifcates o ser+ice( the in+esti!ation "ein! conducted "y the Bm"udsman encroaches into

the Courts ower o administrati+e suer+ision o+er all courts and its ersonnel( in +iolation othe doctrine o searation o owers.

Art. V)))( Sec. o the Constitution e&clusi+ely +ests in the SC administrati+e suer+ision o+er

all courts and court ersonnel( rom the Presidin! :ustice o the CA down to the lowest

municial trial court cler'. y +irtue o this ower( it is only the SC that can o+ersee the #ud!es

and court ersonnels comliance with all laws( and ta'e the roer administrati+e action

a!ainst them i they commit any +iolation thereo. 4o other "ranch o !o+ernment may intrude

into this ower( without runnin! aoul o the doctrine o searation o owers.

*here a criminal comlaint a!ainst a #ud!e or other court emloyee arises rom their

administrati+e duties( the Bm"udsman must deer action on said comlaint and reer the same

to the SC or determination whether said #ud!e or court emloyee had acted within the scoeo their administrati+e duties.

CA0O0 12

0(ne- !" A$$) Rica%o$

FACTS:

Sometime in Bcto"er 576H etitioner authoriMed resondent attorney to sell her two arcels o

land located in Le!aMi City or PI?(???. She a!reed to !i+e resondent 5? ercent o the rice

as commission. Resondent succeeded in sellin! the lots( "ut desite comlainants reeated

demands( he did not turn o+er to her the roceeds o the sale. This orced comlainant to fle

a!ainst resondent and his wie an action or a sum o money "eore the Re!ional Trial Court oNueMon City.

Resondent was declared in deault and #ud!ment was rendered in a+or o etitioner.

Resondent aealed said decision to the Court o Aeals "ut the same was dismissed or

ailure to ay the doc'et ee within the reuired eriod.

A writ o e&ecution was issued( it aeared howe+er that only a artial amount has "een aid

"y the lawyer. /our ostdated chec's were su"seuently issued to co+er the "alance. Said

chec's howe+er( uon resentment were dishonored "ecause the account a!ainst which they

were drawn was closed. @emands to ma'e !ood the chec's were to no a+ail so a case or

+iolation o P HH was fled "y etitioner.

The lawyer denied the alle!ations and fled se+eral motions or e&tension o time to fle

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

6/11

comment. Comlainant fled a motion to cite lawyer or contemt or his alle!ed delayin!

tactics un"ecomin! o a lawyer and a law dean.

I""(e:*hat is the lia"ility o the lawyerK

Hel:Atty. Romulo Ricaort is !uilty o !ra+e misconduct in his dealin!s with comlainant. Rule

5O?5 o Canon 5 o the Code o Proessional Resonsi"ility which ro+ides that A lawyer shall

not en!a!e in unlawul( dishonest and immoral or deceitul conduct.

Resondent had no intention to honor the money #ud!ment a!ainst him in as can "e !leaned

rom his issuance o ostdated chec's2 closin! o the account a!ainst which said chec'swere drawn2 and continued ailure to ma'e !ood the amounts o the chec's.

San$ia#o !" Ra%anan

FACTS:

Atty. -dison V. Raanan( was alle!edly notariMed se+eral documents on di;erent dates and

ailed toO a> ma'e the roer notation re!ardin! the Community Ta& Certifcate o the

comlainant2 "> enter the details o the notariMed documents in the notarial re!ister2 and c>

ma'e and e&ecute the certifcation and enter his PTR and )P num"ers in the documents he

had notariMed.

Bn the other hand( Atty. Raanan admitted ha+in! administered the oath "ut "elie+ed

that nonDnotation o the Resident Certifcates as well as not enterin! the details o the

notariMed documents in the notarial re!ister was allowed. 4otation o Resident Certifcates are

alied only to documents ac'nowled!ed "y a notary u"lic and was not mandatory or

a3da+its related to cases endin! "eore courts and other !o+ernment o3ces. %e urther

asserted that this was a oular ractice amon! notaries u"lic in 4ue+a -ci#a( some o whom

were older ractitioners.

I""(e":*hat is the rule on re!istry o notarial documentsK

Hel: The court ruled in the ne!ati+e. The 4otarial Law is e&licit on the o"li!ations and

duties o notaries u"lic. They are reuired to certiy that the arty to e+ery document

ac'nowled!ed "eore them has resented the roer residence certifcate 2 and to enter its num"er( lace o issue and date as art o such

certifcation. They are also reuired to maintain and 'ee a notarial re!ister2 to enter therein all

instruments notariMed "y them2 and to !i+e to each instrument e&ecuted( sworn to( or

ac'nowled!ed "eore EthemF a num"er corresondin! to the one in EtheirF re!ister Eand to state

thereinF the a!e or a!es o EtheirF re!ister( on which the same is recorded. /ailure to erorm

these duties would result in the re+ocation o their commission as notaries u"lic.

These ormalities are mandatory and cannot "e simly ne!lected( considerin! the

de!ree o imortance and e+identiary wei!ht attached to notariMed documents. 4otaries u"lic

enterin! into their commissions are resumed to "e aware o these elementary reuirements.

)t is intolera"le that he did away with the "asics o notarial rocedure alle!edly

"ecause others were doin! so. ein! swayed "y the "ad e&amle o others is not an acceta"le

#ustifcation or "rea'in! the law.

@is"arment( howe+er( cannot "e !ranted considerin! the nature o the inraction and

the a"sence o deceit on the art o Atty. Raanan. A fne o P8( ??? is imosed with a warnin!

that similar inractions in the uture will "e dealt with more se+erely.

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

7/11

Se.a"$ian !" *aa

FACTS:

susended or three years.

Filacia Inc4 !"4 Henane-

Canon 13

Lan$oia !" A$$)4 *(n)i

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

8/11

Foo"ee !" /a(icio

FACTS:

A certain Al"erto Cordero urortedly "ou!ht rom a !rocery in ValenMuela City

canned !oods includin! a can o C@B Li+er sread. As Cordero and his relati+es were eatin!

"read with the C@B Li+er sread( they ound the sread to "e sour and soon disco+ered a

colony o worms inside the can. This was comlained "eore the /A@. Ater conciliation

meetin!s "etween Cordero and the etitioner( the Corderos e+entually or!ed

a ASQ4@QA4 see'in! the withdrawal o their comlaint "eore the /A@. The /A@ thus

dismissed the comlaint. Resondent( Atty. Gauricio( :r.( who a3&ed his si!nature to

the ASQ4@QA4 as a witness( later wrote in one o his articlescolumns in a ta"loid that he

reared the document.

Comlainant fled criminal comlaints a!ainst resondent and se+eral others or Li"el and

Threatenin! to Pu"lish Li"el under Articles 8=8 and 8= o the Re+ised Penal Code "eore the

B3ce o the City Prosecutor o NueMon City and ValenMuela City. The comlaints were endin!

at the time o the flin! o the resent administrati+e comlaint. @esite the endency o theci+il case a!ainst him and the issuance o a status uo order restrainin!en#oinin! urther

u"lishin!( tele+isin! and "roadcastin! o any matter relati+e to the comlaint o C@B(

resondent continued with his attac's a!ainst comlainant and its roducts.

ISSUE:

*hether or not the resondent +iolated the Code o Proessional Resonsi"ility.

HELD:

,-S. Resondent susended or three years rom the ractice o law.

RATIO:

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

9/11

The a"o+e actuations o resondent are also in +iolation o Rule 58.?8 o the Canon o

Proessional Resonsi"ility which readsO A lawyer shall not ma'e u"lic statements in the

media re!ardin! a endin! case tendin! to arouse u"lic oinion or or a!ainst a arty.

The lan!ua!e emloyed "y resondent undou"tedly casts asersions on the inte!rity o the

B3ce o the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said B3ce. Resondent

clearly assailed the imartiality and airness o the said B3ce in handlin! cases fled "eore it

and did not e+en desi!n to su"mit any e+idence to su"stantiate said wild alle!ations. The use

"y resondent o the a"o+eDuoted lan!ua!e in his leadin!s is maniestly +iolati+e o Canon

55 and the undamental Canon 5 also o the Code o Proessional Resonsi"ility( whichmandates lawyers to uhold the Constitution( o"ey the laws o the land and romote resect

or law and le!al rocesses. Resondent defed said status uo order( desite his

oath as a mem"er o the le!al roession to o"ey the laws as well as the le!al

orders o the duly constituted authorities.

/urther( resondent +iolated Canon 6 and Rule 6.?5 o the Code o Proessional

Resonsi"ility which mandate( and "y ailin! to li+e u to his oath and to comly with the

e&actin! standards o the le!al roession( resondent also +iolated Canon o the Code o

Proessional Resonsi"ility( which directs a lawyer to at all times uhold the inte!rity and the

di!nity o the le!al roession.

Re: S("en"ion o% A$$)4 Ro#elio 74 *a#a.()o

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

10/11

8/9/2019 Canon 11-13 Cases

11/11