of 24
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
1/24
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6403. August 31, 2004]
RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION !" ATT#.
RUDEGE$IO D. TACORDA, %o&'()!!ts, *s. ATT#.
MANUE$ N. CAMAC+O, -s'o!"-!t.
R E S O $ U T I O N
On November 23, 2000, Rudecon Management Corporation and
Atty. Rudegelio D. Tacorda iled !it" t"e #ntegrated $ar o t"e
%"ilippine& '#$%( a veriied complaint or di&barment or &u&pen&ion
rom t"e practice o la! again&t Atty. Manuel N. Camac"o or )no!ingly committing orum*&"opping, in violation o +upreme Court
Admini&trative Circular No. 0*- in relation to t"e provi&ion& o
+ection , Rule /, --/ Rule& o Civil %rocedure and t"e Canon& o
t"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility.
T"e actual antecedent& leading to t"e in&tant complaint are a&
ollo!&1
On +eptember 3, --, +i&enando +ing&on, repre&ented by
"erein re&pondent Atty. Manuel N. Camac"o, iled !it" t"e Regional
Trial Court 'RTC( o ue4on City a complaint again&t "erein
complainant Rudecon Management Corporation or damage& and
reconveyance, doc)eted a& Civil Ca&e No. *-*3.56 T"e ca&e
!a& originally raled to $ranc" /-, RTC, ue4on City '$ranc" /- or
brevity( but !a& eventually re*raled to $ranc" o t"e &ame court.
On +eptember 2, --, +ing&on, again repre&ented by Atty.Camac"o, iled !it" $ranc" /, RTC, ue4on City '$ranc" / or
brevity( a 7Motion or #ntervention '8it" Attac"ed An&!er in
#ntervention 8it" Airmative Deen&e& and Compul&ory Counterclaim(9
in Civil Ca&e No. *-*332:, entitled, 7Rudecon Management
Corporation, plainti*appellee v&. Ramon M. ;elu4, deendant*
appellant,9 a ca&e or unla!ul detainer on appeal beore &aid court.526
On October , --, Rudecon iled a motion beore $ranc" /
&ee)ing to cite +ing&on and "i& coun&el, Atty. Camac"o, or contempt
or "aving allegedly violated t"e rule again&t orum &"opping. Rudecon
contend& t"at t"e an&!er*in*intervention iled beore $ranc" /
involve& t"e &ame i&&ue& already rai&ed in t"e complaint iled !it"
$ranc" /-.
On November :, --, $ranc" /, i&&ued an order, !it" t"e
ollo!ing di&po&itive portion1
8OR=, inding appellee?& "erein Motion to be !ell ta)en,
t"i& Court ind& !ould*be*intervenor, +i&enando +ing&on and "i&
coun&el, Atty. Manuel N. Camac"o to "ave violated t"e rule on orum*
&"opping and "old& t"em liable or contempt o Court under Circular
No. 0*- and +ection , Rule /, Rule& o Court in relation to Rule /
and "ereby reprimand& bot" o t"em
!it"out pre@udice to any admini&trative and appropriate action
again&t !ould*be*intervenor?& coun&el.
+O ORD=R=D.536
+ing&on and Camac"o did not appeal t"e order.
On t"e ba&i& o t"e above*cited order, Rudecon and Tacorda iled
t"e in&tant complaint or di&barment or &u&pen&ion again&t Atty.
Camac"o. Complainant& &ubmit t"at a&ide rom di®arding t"e ruleagain&t orum &"opping, contained in +upreme Court Admini&trative
Circular No. 0*- and +ection , Rule / o t"e --/ Rule& o Court,
re&pondent i& al&o guilty o violating Rule& .0 and .02, Canon and
Rule 0.0, Canon 0 o t"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility.56
Re&pondent iled "i& An&!er to t"e in&tant complaint.
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
2/24
CANON 0 F A la!yer o!e& candor, airne&& and good ait" to t"e
court.
Rule 0.0 F A la!yer &"all not do any al&e"ood, nor con&ent to
t"e doing o any in courtE nor &"all "e mi&lead or allo! t"e court to be
mi&led by any artiice.
Complainant& &ee) t"e di&barment or &u&pen&ion o re&pondent
rom t"e practice o la! or "i& "aving allegedly violated t"e above*
Guoted provi&ion& o t"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility in relation
to +upreme Court Admini&trative Circular 0*- and +ection , Rule
/526 o t"e --/ Rule& o Court.
#n admini&trative ca&e& or di&barment or &u&pen&ion again&t
la!yer&, t"e Guantum o proo reGuired i& clearly preponderant
evidence and t"e burden o proo re&t& upon t"e complainant.536
Moreover, an admini&trative ca&e again&t a la!yer mu&t &"o! t"e
dubiou& c"aracter o t"e act done a& !ell a& o t"e motivation t"ereo.
56 #n t"e pre&ent ca&e, complainant ailed to pre&ent clear and
preponderant evidence to &"o! t"at re&pondent !illully and
deliberately re&orted to al&e"ood and unla!ul and di&"one&t conduct
in violation o t"e &tandard& o "one&ty a& provided or by t"e Code o
%roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility !"ic" !ould "ave !arranted t"e impo&ition
o admini&trative &anction again&t "im.
8OR=, Re&olution No. ;#*200*3 dated >ebruary 2/,
200 o t"e #ntegrated $ar o t"e %"ilippine& i& +=T A+#D= and t"e
in&tant admini&trative ca&e iled again&t Atty. Manuel N. Camac"o i&
D#+M#++=D or lac) o merit.
+O ORD=R=D.526 +ection . Certiication again&t orum &"opping. F T"e plainti
or principal party &"all certiy under oat" in t"e complaint or ot"er
initiatory pleading a&&erting a claim or relie, or in a &!orn certiication
anneed t"ereto and &imultaneou&ly iled t"ere!it"1 'a( t"at "e "a& not
t"eretoore commenced any action or iled any claim involving t"e
&ame i&&ue& in any court, tribunal or Gua&i*@udicial agency and, to t"e
be&t o "i& )no!ledge, no &uc" ot"er action or claim i& pending t"ereinE
'b( i t"ere i& &uc" ot"er pending action or claim, a complete &tatement
o t"e pre&ent &tatu& t"ereoE and 'c( i "e &"ould t"ereater learn t"at
t"e &ame or &imilar action or claim "a& been iled or i& pending, "e
&"all report t"at act !it"in ive '( day& t"ererom to t"e court !"erein
"i& aore&aid complaint or initiatory pleading "a& been iled.
>ailure to comply !it" t"e oregoing reGuirement& &"all not be
curable by mere amendment o t"e complaint or ot"er initiatory
pleading but &"all be cau&e or t"e di&mi&&al o t"e ca&e !it"out
pre@udice, unle&& ot"er!i&e provided, upon motion and ater "earing.
T"e &ubmi&&ion o a al&e certiication or non*compliance !it" any o
t"e underta)ing& t"erein &"all con&titute indirect contempt o court,
!it"out pre@udice to t"e corre&ponding admini&trative and criminal
action&. # t"e act& o t"e party or "i& coun&el clearly con&titute !illul
and deliberate orum &"opping, t"e &ame &"all be ground or &ummary
di&mi&&al !it" pre@udice and &"all con&titute direct contempt, a& !ell a&
a cau&e or admini&trative &anction&.
A.C. No. 623 M%/ 1, 2010
ATT#. I$UMINADA M. VA$ORAROA, Co&'()!!t, *s.
ATT#. OSCAR PAGUINTO, R-s'o!"-!t.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORA$ES, .5
An #normation or =&taa !a& iled on une 2, 200 again&t
Atty. #luminada M. ;alor*>abroa 'complainant( along !it" ot"er& ba&ed
on a @oint aidavit*complaint !"ic" Atty. O&car %aguinto 're&pondent(
prepared and notari4ed. A& t"e @oint aidavit*complaint did not indicate
t"e involvement o complainant, complainant iled a Motion to ua&"
t"e #normation !"ic" t"e trial court granted.2 Re&pondent?& Motion or
Recon&ideration o t"e Gua&"al o t"e #normation !a& denied3
Re&pondent al&o iled &i ot"er criminal complaint& again&t
complainant or violation o Article 3 o Republic Act No. :-3
'Cooperative Code o t"e %"ilippine&( beore t"e Oice o t"e
%rovincial %ro&ecutor, but "e eventually iled a Motion to 8it"dra!
t"em.
On October 0, 200, complainant, !"o !a& C"airper&on o t"e
Beneral Mariano Alvare4 +ervice Cooperative, #nc. 'B=MA+CO(,
received a Notice o +pecial Beneral A&&embly o B=MA+CO on
October , 200 to con&ider t"e removal o our member& o t"e
$oard o Director& 't"e $oard(, including "er and t"e Beneral
Manager. T"e notice !a& &igned by re&pondent.
At t"e October , 200 +pecial Beneral A&&embly pre&ided by
re&pondent and %N% +r. +upt. Angelito H. Berangco 'Berangco(, !"o
!ere not member& o t"e t"en current $oard,: Berango, complainant?&
predece&&or, a& C"air o t"e B=MA+CO board, declared "im&el C"air,
appointed ot"er& to replace t"e removed director&, and appointed
re&pondent a& $oard +ecretary.
On October , 200, re&pondent and "i& group too) over t"e
B=MA+CO oice and it& premi&e&, t"e pump"ou&e&, !ater acilitie&,
and operation&. On even date, re&pondent &ent letter*notice& to
complainant and t"e our removed director& inorming t"em o t"eir
removal rom t"e $oard and a& member& o B=MA+CO, and advi&ing
t"em to cea&e and de&i&t rom urt"er di&c"arging t"e dutie& o t"eir
po&ition&./
Complainant t"u& iled on October :, 200 !it" t"e Cooperative
Development Aut"ority 'CDA(*Calamba a complaint or annulment o
t"e proceeding& ta)en during t"e October , 200 +pecial Beneral
A&&embly.
T"e CDA Acting Regional Director 'RD(, by Re&olution o
>ebruary 2, 2002, declared t"e Gue&tioned general a&&embly null and
void or "aving been conducted in violation o B=MA+CO?& $y*Ha!&
and t"e Cooperative Code o t"e %"ilippine&. T"e RD?& Re&olution o
>ebruary 2, 2002 !a& later vacated or lac) o @uri&diction- o CDA.
#n "er pre&ent complainant0 again&t re&pondent or di&barment,
complainant alleged t"at re&pondent1
%ROMOT=D OR +I=D A BROINDH=++, >AH+= OR
INHA8>IH +I#T, AND BA;= A#D AND CON+=NT TO T TOR HA8 AND T=++#ON2
D#D NOT CONDICT 8#T< COIRT=+J,
>A#RN=++ AND CANDOR TO8ARD =++#ONAHCOHH=ABI= AND =NBAB=D #N
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
3/24
o t"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility. Noting t"at re&pondent "ad
already been previou&ly &u&pended or &i mont"&, t"e Commi&&ioner
recommended t"at re&pondent be &u&pended or t!o year&.
T"e #$% Commi&&ion on $ar Di&cipline 'C$D( $oard o Bovernor&
opted or t"e di&mi&&al o t"e complaint, "o!ever, or lac) o
merit.2:avvp"i
On Motion or Recon&ideration,2/ t"e #$%*C$D $oard o
Bovernor& recommended t"at re&pondent be &u&pended rom t"e
practice o la! or &i mont"&.
T"e Court ind& t"at by conniving !it" Berangco in ta)ing over t"e
$oard o Director& and t"e B=MA+CO acilitie&, re&pondent violated
t"e provi&ion& o t"e Cooperative Code o t"e %"ilippine& and t"e
B=MA+CO $y*Ha!&. ernande4( again&t Atty. Maria Angelica %. De
Ramo&*;illalon 'Atty. ;illalon(. T"e complainant !a& t"e re&pondent in
Civil Ca&e No. 0*0/, in !"ic" Carlo& O. %alacio& '%alacio&( &oug"t
to nulliy a Deed o Donation "e purportedly eecuted in avor o
>ernande4. T"e re&pondent in
t"i& admini&trative action, Atty. ;illalon, !a& %alacio&? coun&el in
t"e early part o t"e ca&eE &"e !it"dre! rom t"e ca&e ater "er
appointment a& pro&ecutor o ue4on City.2
A brie &ummary o Civil Ca&e No. 0*0/ i& in order to put t"i&
admini&trative complaint in proper contet.
%alacio&, in "i& Complaint in Civil Ca&e No. 0*0/, alleged t"at
"e !a& t"e o!ner o a lot covered by Tran&er Certiicate o Title 'TCT(
No. // located in $arangay +an Horen4o, Ma)ati City.3 ernande4 could "elp "im
oppo&e t"e &yndicate?& petition. T"u&, %alacio& approac"ed
>ernande4, and t"ey eventually &ucceeded in cau&ing t"e !it"dra!al
o HRC Ca&e No. M*2, !it" t"e a&&i&tance o a certain Atty.
Augu&to %. imene4, r.. %alacio& allegedly agreed to pay >ernande4
%2,000,000.00 or t"e &ervice& "e rendered in HRC Ca&e No. M*2.
On +eptember 2/, 200, !"en %alacio& vi&ited t"e ;illage
Admini&trator o t"e +an Horen4o ;illage A&&ociation, "e bumped into
Mr&. ocelyn Hirio !"o epre&&ed "er intere&t in %alacio&? +an Ha4aro
property. +"e "ad "eard it !a& being &old by >ernande4. %alacio& !a&
&urpri&ed by Mr&. Hirio?& &tory, a& "e "ad no intention o &elling t"e
property. Ipon inve&tigation, "e di&covered t"at >ernande4 "ad
al&iied a Deed o Donation t"at "e '%alacio&( purportedly eecuted in
>ernande4? avor. T"i& Deed !a& duly regi&tered, and on t"e &trengt"
o t"e purported donation, TCT No. // in %alacio&? name !a&
cancelled, and a ne! TCT 'TCT No. 220:-( !a& i&&ued in >ernande4?
name.
%alacio& t"en employed t"e &ervice& o re&pondent Atty. ;illalon
to ile a Complaint or t"e declaration o nullity o t"e Deed o Donation
t"at became t"e ba&i& or t"e i&&uance o a title in >ernande4? name.T"i& complaint !a& &ub&eGuently amended to implead Romeo Ca&tro,
Atty. Augu&to %. imene4, r., Hevy R. De Dio&, and Ro&ario T. Abobo.:
#n "i& An&!er, >ernande4 claimed t"at t"e tran&er o title in "i&
name !a& proper on account o an ei&ting Deed o Ab&olute +ale
dated anuary 2, 200 bet!een "im and %alacio&. ernande4 alleged t"at Atty. ;illalon,
acting a& %alacio&? coun&el, deceitully1
. &uppre&&ed and ecluded in t"e Original and Amended
Complaint "er )no!ledge about t"e ei&tence o t"e Deed o Ab&olute
+ale dated anuary 2, 200E
2. u&ed t"e a)e and &puriou& Deed o Donation to deceive t"e
court into trying Civil Ca&e No. 0*0/, t"e action or t"e annulment o
TCT No. 220:-, de&pite "er )no!ledge o t"e ei&tence o t"e Deed
o Ab&olute +aleE
3. committed mi&repre&entation& a& ollo!&1 to veriy !"et"er t"e
attac"ed Deed o Ab&olute +ale !a& properly notari4ed, t"e
re&pondent ;illalon per&onally inGuired beore t"e notarial &ection o
t"e Regional Trial Court 'RTC( o ue4on City t"ru a letter*reGue&t,!"et"er a record o t"e deed ei&ted in t"e &aid oiceE in t"e letter*
reGue&t, t"e re&pondent mi&repre&ented t"at t"ere !a& already a
pending ca&e in t"e RTC o Ma)ati beore November -, 200E
. reu&ed to receive t"e complainant?& An&!er !it" Compul&ory
Counterclaim &o t"at &"e could ile on be"al o "er client an Amended
Complaint !it"out leave o court and !it"out pre&enting t"e Deed o
Ab&olute +aleE
. induced "er !itne&& Agne& una 'Commi&&ioner >una( i&&ued a
Report and Recommendation to di&mi&& t"e ca&e, !"ic" in part read&1
T"ere i& no &uicient ba&i& to "old re&pondent accountable or
ailure to mention in t"e Complaint and Amended Complaint t"e
ei&tence o t"e anuary 2 Deed o Ab&olute +ale. No &uc" duty i&
impo&ed upon t"e legal coun&el under any la! or t"e Rule& o Court.
T"i& Commi&&ioner agree& !it" re&pondent?& argument t"at only t"e
client?& operative act& and not t"e ot"er evidentiary act& need to be
Page 3 of 24
LEGETH- CANONS 10-13
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
4/24
included in t"e Complaint. #t i& correct or t"e re&pondent to argue t"at
pointing out t"e ei&tence o t"e anuary 2 Deed o Ab&olute +ale
!a& a matter o deen&e !"ic" t"e deendant in &aid civil ca&e can
reely point out to t"e trial @udge t"roug" "i& o!n pleading&.
#t cannot be argued t"at t"ere !a& &uppre&&ion o evidence on
t"e part o t"e re&pondent a& &"e i& not t"e only per&on !"o "ad
acce&& or po&&e&&ion o t"e &aid Deed o Ab&olute +ale. #t !a& a
document readily available to t"e general public t"roug" t"e Notarial
Oice. Moreover, it !a& a document !"ic" !a& ully )no!n to "erein
complainant a& "e !a& &uppo&ed to be a party to t"e &aid Deed o
Ab&olute +ale. #n ot"er !ord&, a per&on cannot po&&ibly &uppre&& t"e
ei&tence o a document !"ic" everyone el&e, e&pecially t"e oppo&ing
party*litigant, )no!& about.
>urt"ermore, it i& noted t"at !"ile t"e letter to t"e Notarial Oice
!a& dated November -, it !a& actually received by &aid oice only on
November , 200. T"e civil Complaint !a& iled on November , or
on t"e net day. 8e ta)e note t"at t"ere i& no indication !"en t"e
Notarial Oice ormally replied to t"e re&pondent?& letter inGuiry.
T"ereore, it cannot be &aid !it" certainty t"at re&pondent acGuired
)no!ledge about t"e Deed o Ab&olute +ale on November or
November .
8e al&o ta)e note t"at a&&uming t"e re&pondent "ad )no!ledge
about '&ic( t"e ei&tence o t"e Deed o Ab&olute +ale beore t"e civil
complaint !a& iled, "er role a& t"e legal coun&el i& limited by t"e
client?& c"oice o cau&e o action. Moreover, it& mere ei&tence a& a
document i& not an airmation o it& validity or due eecution. #n ot"er !ord&, t"e client, po&&ibly believing in t"e invalidity o t"e Deed o
Ab&olute +ale, may "ave c"o&en to reute t"e validity o t"e document
at a later time !"en and i it& ei&tence i& rai&ed. T"i& i& a c"oice
!it"in t"e di&cretion o t"e party*litigant. T"e oppo&ing party cannot
impo&e it a& a duty upon t"e ot"er party or "i& legal coun&el. T"ere i&,
t"ereore, no &uicient actual ba&i& to "old re&pondent accountable in
t"i& c"arge. A& it turn& out, re&pondent?& client claim& no con&ideration
!a& ever given or t"e Deed o Ab&olute +ale and i& con&eGuently
arguing t"at &aid Deed i& void.
A& or t"e accu&ation t"at re&pondent committed
mi&repre&entation in "er November - letter by &tating t"at a ca&e "ad
already been iled !"en in trut" no &uc" ca&e i& yet pending, !e ta)e
note t"at a&&uming a mi&repre&entation !a& committed, &uc" act doe&
not attain a degree o materiality or gravity &o a& to attribute evil malice
on t"e part o re&pondent. T"e intent on t"e part o re&pondent remain&
t"e &ame, t"at i&, to obtain relevant inormation. 8e cannot attribute
any evil deception in t"e &aid letter con&idering t"e &urrounding act&
e&pecially &ince a civil complaint !a& in act iled t"e very net day t"e
letter !a& &ent.
A& or t"e accu&ation t"at re&pondent reu&ed or ailed to receive
regi&tered mail matter&, &uc" "a& not been actually &ub&tantiated. T"e
&ame goe& !it" t"e accu&ation t"at re&pondent& ailed to urni&"
"erein complainant?& la!yer !it" a copy o t"e Amended Complaint.
%R=M#+=+ CON+#D=R=D, it i& &ubmitted t"at re&pondent did
not commit any act or !"ic" &"e &"ould be di&ciplined or
admini&tratively &anctioned.
#t i& t"ereore recommended t"at t"i& CA+= $= D#+M#++=D or
lac) o merit.
$eore t"i& Court, >ernande4 iled a %etition or Revie! rai&ingt"e ollo!ing i&&ue&1
. !"et"er Commi&&ioner >una committed grave abu&e o
di&cretion in recommending t"e di&mi&&al o t"e di&barment ca&e
again&t t"e Re&pondentE
2. !"et"er Commi&&ioner >una committed grave abu&e o
di&cretion in ailing to re&olve t"e matter regarding t"e aidavit o
ernande4. 8e cannot
ault t"e re&pondent or c"oo&ing not to pur&ue t"e nulliication o t"e
Deed o Ab&olute +ale. T"e re&pondent alleged t"at "er ormer client,
%alacio&, inormed "er t"at t"e Deed o Ab&olute +ale !a& void or lac)
o con&ideration. >urt"ermore, unli)e t"e Deed o Donation, t"e Deed
o Ab&olute +ale !a& not regi&tered in t"e Regi&try o Deed& and !a&
not t"e ba&i& or t"e tran&er o title o %alacio&? property to >ernande4.
Inder t"e circum&tance&, it !a& not unrea&onable or a la!yer to
conclude, !"et"er correctly or incorrectly, t"at t"e Deed o Ab&olute
+ale !a& immaterial in ac"ieving t"e ultimate goal F t"e recovery o
%alacio&? property.
On t"e &econd i&&ue, t"e petitioner complain& t"at Commi&&ioner
>una ailed to con&ider
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
5/24
>ir&t, t"e original aidavit and t"e retraction &tand uncorroborated
by any ot"er evidence and, in our vie!, &tand on t"e &ame ooting.
Neit"er aidavit provide& clear, convincing and &ati&actory proo o
!"at t"ey allege. T"ey cannot t"ereore &tand a& meritoriou& ba&i& or
an accu&ation again&t t"e re&pondent.
+econd, t"e allegation& in bot" &!orn &tatement& are &o
contradictory t"at !e can only conclude t"at ebruary 2, 200-.
Rule .0 * A la!yer &"all not engage in unla!ul, di&"one&t,
immoral or deceitul conduct.
- Rule /.03 * A la!yer &"all not engage in conduct t"at adver&ely
relect& on "i& itne&& to practice la!, nor &"all "e !"et"er in public or
private lie, be"ave in a &candalou& manner to t"e di&credit o t"e legal
proe&&ion.
0 Rule 0.0 * A la!yer &"all not do any al&e"ood, nor con&ent
to t"e doing o any in CourtE nor &"all "e mi&lead, or allo! t"e Court to
be mi&led by any artiice.
Rule 0.02 * A la!yer &"all not )no!ingly mi&Guote or
mi&pre&ent t"e content& o a paper, t"e language or t"e argument o
oppo&ing coun&el, or t"e tet o a deci&ion or aut"ority, or )no!ingly
cite a& la! a provi&ion already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or a&&ert a& a act t"at !"ic" "a& not been proved.
2 Rule 0.03 * A la!yer &"all ob&erve t"e rule& o procedure and
&"all not mi&u&e t"em to deeat t"e end& o @u&tice.
A"&. Cs- No. 22 No*-&7- 22, 2006 [CD 01434]
O+NN# NG, Co&'()!!t, *s. ATT#. ENAMIN C. A$AR,
R-s'o!"-!t.
R E S O $ U T I O N
AUSTRIAMARTINE:, .5
$eore t"e Court i& Re&olution No. ;##*200:*223 dated April 2/,
200: o t"e #$% $oard o Bovernor&, to !it1
R=+OH;=D to ADO%T and A%%RO;=, a& it i& "ereby ADO%T=D
and A%%RO;=D, !it" modiication, t"e Report and Recommendation
o t"e #nve&tigating Commi&&ioner o t"e above*entitled ca&e, "erein
made part o t"i& Re&olution a& Anne LALE and, inding t"e
recommendation ully &upported by t"e evidence on record and t"e
applicable la!& and rule&, and con&idering Re&pondent?& propen&ity to
re&ort to unde&erved language and di&re&pectul &tance, Atty.
$en@amin C. Alar i& "ereby R=%R#MAND=D !it" a &tern 8arning t"at
&evere penaltie& !ill be impo&ed in ca&e &imilar mi&conduct i& again
committed. Hi)e!i&e, t"e counter complaint again&t Atty. o&e Raulito
=. %ara& and Atty. =lvin Mic"ael Cru4 i& "ereby D#+M#++=D or lac) o
merit.
A veriied complaint dated >ebruary , 200 !a& iled by
o"nny Ng 'complainant( again&t Atty. $en@amin C. Alar 're&pondent(
beore t"e #ntegrated $ar o t"e %"ilippine& '#$%(, Commi&&ion on $ar
Di&cipline 'C$D(, or Di&barment.
Complainant allege& t"at "e i& one o t"e re&pondent& in a labor ca&e !it" t"e National Habor Relation& Commi&&ion 'NHRC( doc)eted
a& NHRC NCR CA No. 002/3*0, !"ile re&pondent i& t"e coun&el or
complainant&. T"e Habor Arbiter 'HA( di&mi&&ed t"e complaint. On
appeal, t"e NHRC rendered a Deci&ion2 airming t"e deci&ion o t"e
HA. Re&pondent iled a Motion or Recon&ideration !it" Motion to
#n"ibit 'MRM#(,3 pertinent portion& o !"ic" read1
8e cannot "elp &u&pecting t"at t"e deci&ion under
con&ideration !a& merely copied rom t"e pleading& o re&pondent&*
appellee& !it" very &lig"t modiication&. $ut !e cannot
accept t"e &ugge&tion, made by &ome )no!ledgeable individual&,
t"at t"e actual !riter o t"e &aid deci&ion i& not at all connected !it"
t"e NHRC >ir&t Divi&ion.
8"y did t"e NHRC, >ir&t Divi&ion, up"old t"e Habor Arbiter in
maintaining t"at t"e &eparation pay &"ould be only one "al mont" per
year o &ervice #& @uri&prudence on t"i& not clear enoug", or i& t"ere
anot"er rea&on )no!n only to t"em
# t"i& i& not grave abu&e o di&cretion on t"e part o t"e
NHRC, >ir&t Divi&ion, it i& ignominiou& ignorance o t"e la! on t"e part
o t"e commi&&ioner& concerned.
T"e NHRC !ant& proo rom t"e complainant& t"at t"e ire actually
re&ulted in pro&perity and not lo&&e&. Re&pondent& ailed to prove
t"eir claim o lo&&e&. And t"e ir&t Divi&ion do not )no! t"i&, t"ey are indeed irrelevant to real lie.
!e invite t"e ir&t Divi&ion are doubly &o F and
!it" malice t"ro!n in. # t"e !or)er& indeed committed an illegal &tri)e,
"o! come t"eir only LpenaltyL i& removing t"eir tent #t i& obviou& t"at
t"e Habor Arbiter and t"e or lac) o a better name !e &"ould call t"i&
ne! rule t"e L+pecial Dinopol RuleL. $ut only retirable
commi&&ioner& are aut"ori4ed to apply t"i& rule and only !"en t"e
money claim& involved are &ub&tantial. 8"en t"ey are meager t"e
ordinary rule& apply.
"o! Commi&&ioner Dinopol i& able to &ay t"at t"e pay &lip&
proved t"at t"e &iteen ':( claimant& !ere already paid t"eir &ervice
incentive leave pay. T"i& inding i& copied verbatim rom t"e cro&&*
eyed deci&ion o Habor Arbiter +anto& .
T"e evidence already on record proving t"at t"e alleged bloc)ingo t"e ingre&& and egre&& i& a myt" &eem invi&ible to t"e impaired &ig"t
o Commi&&ioner Dinopol. ir&t Divi&ion to &ign( "a& &"o!n great and
irreparable impartiality, grave abu&e o di&cretion and ignorance o t"e
la!.
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
6/24
Commi&&ioner& are not @udge& nor @u&tice& and t"e Code o udicial
Conduct &imilarly do not apply to t"em, not being part o t"e @udiciaryE
and t"at t"e labor la!yer& !"o are "one&tly and con&cientiou&ly
practicing beore t"e NHRC and get paid on a contingent ba&i& are
entitled to &ome latitude o rig"teou& anger !"en t"ey get c"eated in
t"eir ca&e& by rea&on o corruption and collu&ion by t"e c"eat& rom
t"e ot"er &ector& !"o ma)e t"eir live& and t"e live& o t"eir
con&tituent& mi&erable, !it" impunity, unli)e la!yer& or t"e employer&
!"o get paid, !in or lo&e, and t"ereore "ave no rea&on to eel
aggrieved.
Attac"ed to t"e Counter*Complaint i& t"e aidavit o union
pre&ident Marilyn $atan !"erein it i& alleged t"at Atty&. %ara& and Cru4
violated t"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility o la!yer& in &everal
in&tance&, &uc" t"at !"ile t"e labor ca&e i& pending beore t"e NHRC,
re&pondent& %ara& and Cru4 iled a ne! ca&e again&t t"e laborer& in
t"e Oice o t"e City =ngineer o ue4on City 'C( to demoli&" t"e
tent o t"e !or)er&, t"u& &plitting t"e @uri&diction bet!een t"e NHRC
and t"e City =ngineerQ& Oice 'C=O( o C !"ic" violate& Canon 2,
Rule& 2.02 and 3.03E t"at alt"oug" Ng &igned t"e di&barment
complaint again&t Alar, re&pondent& %ara&?& and Cru4?& oice
in&tigated t"e &aid complaint !"ic" violate& Canon E t"at NgQ&
company did not pay
income ta or t"e year 2000 allegedly or non*operation due to
ire and re&pondent& con&ented to t"i& act o t"e employer !"ic"
violate& Canon -, Rule -.02E and t"at !"en t"e ca&e &tarted, t"ere
!ere more or le&& 00 complainant&, but due to t"e act& o t"eemployer and t"e re&pondent&, t"e number o complainant& !ere
reduced to almo&t "al !"ic" violate& Canon -, Rule -*0, -*02 and
-*03.:
#n An&!er to t"e Counter*Complaint dated April , 200,/
re&pondent& %ara& and Cru4 alleged1 At no time did t"ey ile multiple
action& ari&ing rom t"e &ame cau&e o action or broo) intererence in
t"e normal cour&e o @udicial proceeding&E t"e relie& &oug"t beore t"e
C=O "a& not"ing to do !it" t"e ca&e pending beore t"e NHRCE t"e
demolition o t"e nui&ance and illegal &tructure& i& a cau&e o action
completely irrelevant and unrelated to t"e labor ca&e& o complainantE
t"e C=O !a& reGue&ted to inve&tigate certain nui&ance &tructure&
located out&ide t"e employerQ& property, !"ic" con&i&t o &"antie&,
tent&, banner& and ot"er parap"ernalia !"ic" "ampered t"e ree
ingre&& to and egre&& out o t"e employerQ& property and pre&ent clear
and pre&ent "a4ard&E t"e Oice o t"e City =ngineer ound t"e
&tructure& violative o pertinent D%8< and MMDA ordinance&E t"e
pendency o a labor ca&e !it" t"e NHRC i& completely irrelevant &ince
t"e "olding o a &tri)e, legal or not, did not validate or @u&tiy t"e
con&truction o illegal nui&ance &tructure&E t"e C=O proceeded to
abate t"e nui&ance &tructure& pur&uant to it& po!er to protect lie,
property and legal orderE it !a& not t"eir idea to ile t"e di&barment
complaint again&t re&pondent AlarE t"ey merely in&tructed t"eir client
on "o! to go about iling t"e ca&e, ater "aving been &erved a copy o
t"e derogatory MRM#E Canon &"ould not be perceived a& an ecu&e
or la!yer& to turn t"eir bac)& on maliciou& act& done by t"eir brot"er
la!yer&E t"e complaint ailed to mention t"at t"e only rea&on t"e
number o complainant& !ere reduced i& becau&e o t"e amicable
&ettlement t"ey !ere able to reac" !it" mo&t o t"emE t"eir
engagement or legal &ervice& i& only or labor and litigation ca&e&E atno time !ere t"ey con&ulted regarding t"e ta concern& o t"eir client
and t"ereore !ere never privy to t"e inancial record& o t"e latterE at
no time did t"ey give advice regarding t"eir clientQ& ta concern&E
re&pondent AlarQ& attempt at a di&barment ca&e again&t t"em i&
un!arranted, un@u&tiied and obviou&ly a mere retaliatory action on "i&
part.
T"e ca&e, doc)eted a& C$D Ca&e No. 0*3, !a& a&&igned by
t"e #$% to Commi&&ioner %atric) M. ;ele4 or inve&tigation, report and
recommendation. #n "i& Report and Recommendation, t"e
#nve&tigating Commi&&ioner ound re&pondent guilty o u&ing improper
and abu&ive language and recommended t"at re&pondent be
&u&pended or a period o not le&& t"an t"ree mont"& !it" a &tern
!arning t"at more &evere penalty !ill be impo&ed in ca&e &imilar
mi&conduct i& again committed.
On t"e ot"er "and, t"e #nve&tigating Commi&&ioner did not ind
any actionable mi&conduct again&t Atty&. %ara& and Cru4 and t"ereore
recommended t"at t"e Counter*Complaint again&t t"em be di&mi&&ed
or lac) o merit.
Acting on t"e Report and Recommendation, t"e #$% $oard o
Bovernor& i&&ued t"e Re&olution "ereinbeore Guoted. 8"ile t"e Court
agree& !it" t"e inding& o t"e #$%, it doe& not agree t"at re&pondent
Alar de&erve& only a reprimand.
T"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility mandate&1
CANON F A la!yer &"all conduct "im&el !it" courte&y, airne&&
and candor to!ard "i& proe&&ional colleague&, and &"all avoid
"ara&&ing tactic& again&t oppo&ing coun&el.
Rule .0 A la!yer &"all not, in "i& proe&&ional dealing&, u&e
language !"ic" i& abu&ive, oen&ive or ot"er!i&e improper.
CANON F A la!yer &"all ob&erve and maintain t"e re&pect due
to t"e court& and to @udicial oicer& and &"ould in&i&t on &imilar conduct
by ot"er&.
Rule .03 F A la!yer &"all ab&tain rom &candalou&, oen&ive or
menacing language or be"avior beore t"e Court&.
Rule .0 F A la!yer &"all not attribute to a udge motive& not
&upported by t"e record or "ave no materiality to t"e ca&e.
T"e MRM# contain& in&ult& and diatribe& again&t t"e NHRC,
attac)ing bot" it& moral and intellectual integrity, replete !it" implied
accu&ation& o partiality, impropriety and lac) o diligence. Re&pondent
u&ed improper and oen&ive language in "i& pleading& t"at doe& not
admit any @u&tiication.
#n Hacurom v. acoba, t"e Court ratiocinated a& ollo!&1
8ell*recogni4ed i& t"e rig"t o a la!yer, bot" a& an oicer o t"e
court and a& a citi4en, to critici4e in properly re&pectul term& and
t"roug" legitimate c"annel& t"e act& o court& and @udge&. errer, t"u&12. 8"at !e "ave beore u& i& not !it"out precedent. Time and
again, t"i& Court "a& admoni&"ed and puni&"ed, in varying degree&,
member& o t"e $ar or &tatement&, di&re&pectul or irreverent,
acrimoniou& or deamatory, o t"i& Court or t"e lo!er court&. Re&ort by
an attorney F in a motion or recon&ideration F to !ord& !"ic" may
drag t"i& Court do!n into di&repute, i& ro!ned upon a& Lneit"er
@u&tiied nor in t"e lea&t nece&&ary, becau&e in order to call t"e
attention o t"e court in a &pecial !ay to t"e e&&ential point& relied
upon in "i& argument and to emp"a&i4e t"e orce t"ereo, t"e many
rea&on& &tated in t"e motionL are L&uicient,L and &uc" !ord&
L&uperluou&.L #t i& in t"i& contet t"at !e mu&t &ay t"at @u&t becau&e
Atty. Armonio Lt"oug"t be&t to ocu& t"e attentionL o t"i& Court Lto t"e
i&&ue in t"e ca&eL doe& not give "im unbridled licen&e in language. To
be &ure, la!yer& may come up !it" variou& met"od&, per"ap& muc"
more eective, in calling t"e Court?& attention to t"e i&&ue& involved.
T"e language ve"icle doe& not run &"ort o epre&&ion&, emp"atic but
re&pectul, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not oen&ive.
To be pro&cribed t"en i& t"e u&e o unnece&&ary language !"ic"
@eopardi4e& "ig" e&teem in court&, create& or promote& di&tru&t in
@udicial admini&tration, or !"ic" could "ave t"e eect o L"arboring and
encouraging di&content !"ic", in many ca&e&, i& t"e &ource o
di&order, t"u& undermining t"e oundation upon !"ic" re&t& t"at
bul!ar) called @udicial po!er to !"ic" t"o&e !"o are aggrieved turn or
protection and relie.L +tability o @udicial in&titution& &ugge&t& t"at t"e
$ar &tand irm on t"i& precept.
Page 6 of 24
LEGETH- CANONS 10-13
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
7/24
T"e language "ere in Gue&tion, re&pondent& aver, L!a& t"e re&ult
o overent"u&ia&m.L #t i& but to repeat an old idea !"en !e &ay t"at
ent"u&ia&m, or even ece&& o it, i& not really bad. #n act, t"e one or
t"e ot"er i& no le&& a virtue, i c"anneled in t"e rig"t direction.
udot?& intere&t in t"e property a& !ell to put an
end to t"e litigation. T"ey did not reac" an agreement on t"e
purc"a&e price.5:6
Anot"er meeting !a& &et, t"i& time, t"roug" t"e
interce&&ion o Atty. Dioni&io De Ha +erna, ormer +ecretary o t"e
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
8/24
Only t!o year& ago, in Him v. orge, 'B.R. No. ::,
Marc" , 200( u&tice Dante Tinga made a learned treati&e !"en
"e &ummari4ed and urt"er epounded on all t"e long* e&tabli&"ed
doctrine& on t"e la! and @uri&prudence governing t"e Torren& +y&tem
o land title& in t"e %"ilippine&. #t !a& indeed a brilliant ant"ology
!ort"y o publication into a boo).
#n t"i& in&tant Deci&ion "o!ever, u&tice Tinga "a&
&!allo!ed all t"e noble doctrine& "e "a& enunciated &o brilliantly,
and in&tead repudiated and contradicted everyt"ing "e "a& &aid @u&t
to accommodate O $R#$=RJ, t"en !e don?t
)no! !"at i&.
T"e Deci&ion o u&tice Tinga in t"i& ca&e i& &imply a
ROBI= D=C#+#ON. #t i& illegal. #t i& immoral. And li)e a 7mad dog, it
&"ould be &lain at &ig"t.956 '=mp"a&i& &upplied(
Atty. De Ha +erna al&o ind& it &urpri&ing t"at t"e in&tant
ca&e !a& decided le&& t"an t!o '2( year& ater it !a& &ubmitted or
re&olution. Tebruary 200, t"e Court i&&ued a Re&olution
reGuiring Atty. De Ha +erna to eplain in !riting !"y "e &"ould not be
puni&"ed or indirect contempt o court.5/6 On 2/ Marc" 200, DeHa +erna &ubmitted "i& eplanation, &tating t"at "e believe& in
utmo&t good ait" t"at all t"e &tatement& "e made in recent pleading&
"e &ubmitted in t"i& ca&e do not con&titute 7improper conduct9 and
t"at "i& &tatement& 7!ere not intended to impede, ob&truct or
degrade? t"e admini&tration o @u&tice,9 a& t"ey !ere made, on t"e
contrary, 7TO %R=;=NT T A BRA;=
#NI+T#C=.56
#n a re&olution dated April 200, t"e Court &et t"e
"earing on t"e c"arge o indirect contempt on une 200.5-6 #n
t"e "earing, Atty. De Ha +erna, toget"er !it" "i& &on Atty. ;ictor De
Ha +erna, r., Mr. C"an, Atty. %etralba and Atty. Ale Monteclar 'Atty.
Monteclar( o Cattleya appeared.
Atty. De Ha +erna mainly reiterated "i& argument& during
t"e "earing.
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
9/24
"e never intimated a bribery o a +upreme Court u&tice.5336 #n "i&
te&timony, Atty. %etralba &tated1
Atty. %aulino %etralba1
# !ill proceed. Ater t"e t"ird meeting in +eptember ,
200/ !"ic" i& by t"e !ay, Jour udot, told t"em t"at "e !ould try
to epedite t"e matter and tal) to De Ha +erna.53:6
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
10/24
"e enunciated in t"e Him ca&e 7@u&t to accommodate Mr. C"an and
all "i& co"ort& and "i& money956 i& not only groundle&&, it i& al&o
do!nrig"t contemptuou&.
#n t"e ir&t place, Mr. C"an, t"e 7per&on mo&t involved9526 "ad
categorically denied ma)ing t"e &tatement to t"e eect t"at "e gave
%0 Million to u&tice Tinga, or to any ot"er @u&tice in t"e divi&ion.536
u&tice ui&umbing1 Jou denied. Jou &aid you did not
ma)e any &tatement to Atty. De la +erna concerning giving o Ten
Million to Mr. u&tice Tinga
Mr. C"an1 # did not.
u&tice ui&umbing1 # a&) you no! t"at you "ave not givenanyt"ing to t"e ot"er @u&tice& in t"i& panel
Mr. C"an1 # did not, Jour or one, Mr. C"an !a& earne&t in a&)ing or,and pu&"ing t"roug" !it", t"e meeting on 2 +eptember 200/ !it"De Ha +erna. rom a related per&pective, it !ould be plainly ool"ardyor Mr. C"an to go t"roug" all t"e trouble and ri&) o bribing a+upreme Court u&tice in t"e amount o %0Million !"en "e could"ave directly acGuired t"e property by paying o De Ha +erna !it"t"e &ame amount !"ic" t"e latter "ad demanded in t"e ir&t place.T"i& a&pect !a& clearly demon&trated during t"e "earing, t"u&1
u&tice ui&umbing1 >rom your point o vie!, i& t"ere anyindication rom your o!n circle o anyt"ing &pent or t"e +upremeCourt by Mr. C"an
Atty. %aulino %etralba1 No, Jour our Million
Atty. %aulino %etralba1 Je&, Jour
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
11/24
!"ic" t"e Oppu& ca&e !a& pending cannot &erve a& &ound ba&i& or
compari&on !it" t"i& ca&e.
#n addition, Atty. De Ha +erna?& a&&umption t"at t"e in&tant
ca&e !a& decided a"ead o 20,000 ot"er ca&e& i& prepo&terou&.
Deducting t"e Beneral Regi&ter Number ' B.R. No.( o t"e Oppu&
ca&e rom t"e in&tant ca&e !ould lead one to iner t"at 20,000 ca&e&
are &till pending, !"ic" i& not t"e ca&e, &ince a& pointed out by
u&tice Carpio, t"ere are no more t"an ten t"ou&and ca&e& pending
in t"e +upreme Court at any one time.5:6 $e&ide&, in bet!een t"e
B.R. No. o t"e Oppu& ca&e 'B.R. No. /00( and t"at o t"i& ca&e
'B.R. No.0:(, are t"ou&and& o ca&e&.
A la!yer i&, ir&t and oremo&t, an oicer o t"e court. Corollary
to "i& duty to ob&erve and maintain t"e re&pect due to t"e court&
and @udicial oicer& i& to &upport t"e court& again&t Lun@u&t
critici&m and clamor.L5:26
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
12/24
>#N=D in t"e amount o %30,000.00 to be paid !it"in ten '0(
day& rom receipt o t"i& Re&olution and 8ARN=D t"at a repetition o
a &imilar act !ill !arrant a more &evere penalty.
Het a copy o t"i& Re&olution be attac"ed to Atty. De Ha
+erna?& per&onal record in t"e Oice o t"e $ar Conidant and copie&
t"ereo urni&"ed t"e #ntegrated $ar o t"e %"ilippine& '#$%(.
T"e #$% i& ordered to &ubmit !it" D#+%ATC< it& Report on
t"e inve&tigation in Babriel T. #ngle& v. Atty. ;ictor De Ha +erna,
doc)eted a& A.C. No. /:3.
T"i& Re&olution i& immediately eecutory.
+O ORD=R=D.
A.M. No. RT9043 S-'t-&7- 2, 199
ATT#. ANTONIO T. GUERRERO, %o&'()!!t, *s. +ON.
ADRIANO VI$$AMOR, -s'o!"-!t.
A.M. No. RT9061 S-'t-&7- 2, 199
GEORGE CAR$OS, %o&'()!!t, *s. +ON. ADRIANO
VI$$AMOR, -s'o!"-!t.
;UISUMING, .5
#n a &!orn letter*complaint addre&&ed to t"i& Court t"roug" t"e
Court Admini&trator, dated Marc" , --0, Atty. Antonio Buerrero
c"arge& udge Adriano ;illamor o t"e Regional Trial
Court at Naval, +ub*%rovince o $iliran, Heyte, $ranc" :, !it"
&eriou& mi&conduct, ignorance o t"e la!, )no!ingly rendering an
un@u&t @udgment, mi&ea&ance, malea&ance and neglect o duty or
i&&uing an Order 2 dated December , -/ declaring t"e
complainant and one Beorge Carlo& guilty o direct contempt.
#n a &eparate veriied complaint, involving eactly t"e &ame
incident, Beorge Carlo& al&o c"arge& udge Adriano ;illamor !it"
&ub&tantially t"e &ame oen&e&. 3
$y re&olution dated >ebruary , --, t"i& Court reerred to
A&&ociate u&tice Cancio C. Barcia o t"e Court o Appeal& t"e
complaint o Atty. Buerrero, doc)eted a& Admini&trative Matter 'A.M.(RT -0*3, or inve&tigation, report and recommendation. T"i& !a&
ollo!ed by anot"er re&olution, pur&uant to !"ic" t"e record& o t"e
ca&e relating to Carlo&Q complaint, doc)eted, a& A.M. RT*-0*:/, !ere
or!arded to &aid inve&tigator or con&olidation !it" A.M. RT -0*3.
T"e &aid admini&trative matter& "ave no! to be re&olved in vie!
o re&pondentQ& pending claim&, or gratuity granted by t"i& Court per
it& Re&olution dated April 2, --, !"ic" read& a& ollo!&1
A.M. No. RT*-0*/ 'Clemencio C. +abit&ana, r. v&. udge
Adriano ;illamor, Regional Trial Court, $ranc" :, Naval, Heyte( and
A.M. No. RT*-0*:0: 'Clemencio C. +abit&ana, R. v&. udge Adriano
;illamor, Regional Trial Court, $ranc" :, Naval, Heyte(. Acting on
t"e plea or mercy and compa&&ion, dated >ebruary 2, --, iled by
coun&el or re&pondent @udge, and it appearing t"at t"e Court in it& per
curiam re&olution, dated >ebruary /, --2, amended t"e di&po&itive
portion o it& deci&ion, dated October , --, by allo!ing udge
;illamor to en@oy all vacation and &ic) leave beneit& t"at "e "a&
earned during t"e period o "i& government &ervice and in t"e
re&olution o May , --3, denied t"e motion or recon&ideration iled
by t"e re&pondent or "aving been iled late, and alt"oug" t"e Court
!ill not condone t"e !rongdoing& o any member o t"e benc", neit"er
!ill it negate any move to recogni4e and remunerate t"eir lengt"y
+ervice in t"e government, more &o, i t"i& !ill greatly beneit t"e la&t
day& o t"eir remaining lie, t"e Court Re&olved to BRANT ormer
udge Adriano ;illamor a gratuity eGuivalent to 2W o "i& retirement
beneit&. T"e payment o t"i& beneit, "o!ever, &"all be &ub@ect to t"e
availability o und& and t"e u&ual clearance reGuirement&. T"i& ruling
i& pro "ac vice and i& not a precedent or ot"er ca&e&.
A& gleamed rom t"e report by t"e #nve&tigating u&tice, t"e
antecedent act& o t"e pre&ent con&olidated ca&e& are a& ollo!&1+ometime in November -:, one Bloria %a&cubillo iled a
complaint again&t Beorge Carlo& or Guieting o title. Doc)eted a& Civil
Ca&e No. $*0: in t"e Regional Trial Court at Naval, Heyte, t"e ca&e
ended in a compromi&e agreement approved by t"e court !"ereby
Carlo& agreed to deliver po&&e&&ion o t"e property in Gue&tion to
%a&cubillo !"o, in turn, undertoo) to pay t"e
ormer t"e &um o %,000.00 a& purc"a&e price. >or &ome rea&on
or anot"er, t"e @udgment by compromi&e remained dormant or ive '(
year&.
On November 23, -//, Bloria Naval, nee %a&cubillo, iled beore
t"e Regional Trial Court at Naval, Heyte, Civil Ca&e No. $*03- again&t
Carlo& or revival and enorcement o t"e @udgment in Civil Ca&e No. $*
0:. #n turn, Carlo& iled Criminal Ca&e& No&. N*--, N*--0, N*--,
N*--2 and N*--3 or Gualiied t"et again&t Naval and "er "elper&.
T"e&e criminal ca&e&, li)e Civil Ca&e No. $*03-, !ere raled to t"e
&ala o udge ;illamor.
Due to t"e pendency o Civil Ca&e No. $*03-, udge ;illamor
"ad t"e criminal ca&e& arc"ived, noting in "i& Order& o anuary ,
- t"at bot" &et& o ca&e& "ave or t"eir &ub@ect t"e &ame parcel o
land.
=ventually, udge ;illamor rendered @udgment in Civil Ca&e No.
$*03-, declaring Naval to be t"e la!ul o!nerPpo&&e&&or o t"e land
being di&puted, and ordering Carlo& to vacate t"e &ame.
>ort"!it", Carlo& moved to reactivate t"e arc"ived aorecited
criminal ca&e&. Acting on t"e motion o t"e accu&ed, udge ;illamor
di&mi&&ed t"e ca&e&. A& "e ob&erved in "i& di&mi&&al order dated
December , -:, Naval and "er "elper& cannot be "eld liable or
Gualiied t"et or gat"ering coconut& on a piece o land o !"ic" Naval
i& t"e o!ner. :
Mean!"ile, Carlo& appealed t"e deci&ion in Civil Ca&e No. $*
03-. During t"e pendency o t"e appeal, udge ;illamor i&&ued an
order granting eecution !"ic" Carlo&, in due time, c"allenged t"roug"
a petition or certiorari beore t"i& Court. T"e ca&e !a& certiied to t"e
Court o Appeal& and doc)eted a& CA*B.R. +% No. 20. #n it&
Deci&ion dated October /, -/, amending it& earlier deci&ion o uly2, -/, t"e Court o Appeal& airmed !it" modiication t"e order o
immediate eecution i&&ued by udge ;illamor. Hater, t"i& Court, in
B.R. No. 2:, re&olved to deny t"e petition or revie! iled by Carlo&
or ailure to &"o! t"at t"e Appellate Court committed rever&ible error
in &u&taining t"e trial courtQ& order granting eecution pending appeal.
/
On uly 2, -/, Carlo& iled !it" t"i& Court an admini&trative
ca&e again&t udge ;illamor, doc)eted a& A.M. RT /*0 c"arging
t"e latter !it" "aving i&&ued an illegal order and un@u&t deci&ion
principally in t"e aorementioned criminal ca&e& and in Civil Ca&e No.
$*03-. #n it& =n $anc Re&olution dated November 2, -, a&
reiterated in anot"er re&olution o anuary 2:, --, t"i& Court
di&mi&&ed t"e &aid admini&trative ca&e or being premature but
L!it"out pre@udice to reiling &"ould t"e +upreme Court deci&ion later in
B.R. 2: !arrant& it& reiling.L
Di&&ati&ied !it" t"e outcome o "i& admini&trative ca&e, Carlo&,
t"roug" Atty. Antonio Buerrero, iled !it" t"e Regional Trial Court o
Cebu a civil action or damage& again&t udge ;illamor. #n "i&
complaint, doc)eted a& C=$*:/, and raled to $ranc" 2 pre&ided
by t"en udge uanito $ernad, Carlo& alleged t"at udge ;illamor
)no!ingly rendered an un@u&t @udgment !"en "e di&mi&&ed t"e ive
criminal ca&e& again&t Naval and "er co*accu&ed.
T"e &ummon& in Civil Ca&e No. C=$*:/ !a& &erved on udge
;illamor on December 0, -/. T"e ollo!ing day, in&tead o
an&!ering t"e complaint, udge ;illamor i&&ued in Criminal Ca&e&
No&. N*0-- to 0--3 an order declaring Carlo& and "i& la!yer, Antonio
Buerrero guilty o direct contempt or Ldegrading t"e re&pect and
dignity o t"e court t"roug" t"e u&e o derogatory and contemptuou&
language beore t"e court,L - #n ull, t"e contempt order read&1ORD=R O> CONT=M%T O> COIRT
#t i& indeed unortunate and regrettable t"at Beorge Carlo& and
"i& coun&el, Atty. Antonio T. Buerrero "ave bru&"ed a&ide t"e !arning
o t"i& Court not to mi&ta)e it& maimum tolerance a& !ea)ne&&. Once
again, t"ey "ave deiled t"i& Court !it" abu&ive, oen&ive and
di&re&pectul language in t"eir complaint or Damage&, Civil Ca&e C=$
:/, RTC, /t" udicial Region, Cebu City again&t t"e "erein pre&iding
@udge or di&mi&&ing t"e aorementioned ca&e& on December , -:.
Neit"er Beorge Carlo&, t"e private pro&ecutor or public
pro&ecutor Gue&tioned t"e &aid di&mi&&al in t"e proper orum. #t !a&
only on December 3, -/ t"at Beorge Carlo& and "i& coun&el Atty.
Antonio T. Buerrero !"en t"ey iled civil ca&e C=$ :/ peremptorily
labelled t"e di&mi&&al a& Lun@u&t deci&ion.L
And in t"eir complaint t"ey alleged1
%ar. 2. T"at t"e di&mi&&al o criminal ca&e& No&. 0--, 0--0,
0--, 0--2 and 0--3 or Gualiied t"et !a& arrived at certainly !it"out
circum&pection !it"out any moral or legal ba&i& a ca&e o
)no!ingly rendering un@u&t @udgment &ince t"e di&mi&&al !a&
tantamount to acGuittal o t"e accu&ed Bloria %. Naval !"o i& no!
beyond t"e reac" o criminal and civil liability all becau&e t"e
deendant
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
13/24
appalling in giving t"e plainti beore "i& court t"e run*around i& at
t"e very lea&t di&ta&teul, di&tre&&ing and mortiying and moral
damage& t"ereor !ould !arrant on t"i& )ind o repre"en&ible be"avior
. . . .
%ar. . T"at t"e aorecited manie&tly maliciou& actuation&,
deendant @udge &"ould al&o vi&it upon "im . . . or reducing plainti "i&
agoni4ing victim o "i& di&dain and contempt or t"e
ormer !"o not only torn a&under and &purned but al&o "umiliated
and &piteully &corned.
T"e oregoing &pecially c"o&en language by Beorge Carlo& and
Atty. Buerrero i& !"at Dean %ound aptly termed a& L=pit"etical
uri&prudenceL. And to parap"ra&e t"en C"ie u&tice $eng4on in
Hagumbay v. Comelec ': +CRA /( t"e employment o intemperate
language &erve& no purpo&e but to detract t"e orce o t"e argument.
T"at i& to put a& it& milde&t a !ell*de&erved reproac" to &uc"
propen&ity. A member o t"e bar !"o "a& given vent to &uc"
epre&&ion& o ill !ill, not to &ay malevolence, betray& gro&& di&re&pect
not only to t"e adver&e party, but al&o to t"i& Tribunal '+urigao Mineral
Re&ervation $oard v. Cloribel, 3 +CRA (.
T"e&e epit"et& undermine& '&ic( t"e dignity o t"e court. #t '&ic(
aront& it& ma@e&ty and put& '&ic( it in di&repute and di&re&pect. Not
only are t"ey unounded and un&ub&tantiated. T"ey con&titute direct
contempt or contempt in acie curiae &ummarily puni&"able !it"out
"earing.
T"e Court ind& Beorge Carlo& and Atty. Antonio T. Buerrero
BI#HTJ beyond rea&onable doubt o Direct Contempt o Court and&entence& bot" to an impri&onment o ive '( day& and to pay a ine o
>ive or liability to attac" or ignorance o t"e la!, t"e a&&ailed order,
deci&ion or actuation o t"e @udge in t"e perormance o oicial dutie&
mu&t not only be ound erroneou& but, mo&t importantly, it mu&t al&o be
e&tabli&"ed t"at "e !a& moved by bad ait", di&"one&ty, "atred, or
&ome ot"er li)e motive. 2 +imilarly, a @udge !ill be "eld
admini&tratively liable or rendering an un@u&t @udgment one !"ic" i&
contrary to la! or @uri&prudence or i& not &upported by evidence
!"en "e act& in bad ait", malice, revenge or &ome ot"er &imilar
motive. #n ine, bad ait" i& t"e ground or liability in eit"er or bot"
oen&e&. 22
Conver&ely, a c"arge or eit"er ignorance o t"e la! or rendering
an un@u&t @udgment !ill not pro&per again&t a @udge acting in good ait".
Ab&ent t"e element o bad ait", an erroneou& @udgment cannot be t"e
ba&i& o a c"arge or any &aid oen&e&, mere error o @udgment not
being a ground or di&ciplinary proceeding&.
>rom t"e record beore u& !e agree !it" t"e inding o t"e
inve&tigating u&tice t"at re&pondent, in i&&uing "i& erroneou&
contempt order, !a& not moved by ill*!ill or by an impul&e to do an
in@u&tice. To be &ure, complainant& "ave not pre&ented evidence or
oered logical argument& tending to &"o! t"at bad ait" accompanied
t"e i&&uance o t"e contempt order. #t oug"t to be remembered t"at
bad ait" i& not pre&umed and "e !"o allege& t"e &ame "a& t"e onu&
o proving it. #n t"i& regard, complainant& "ave not di&c"arged t"at
burden o proo &uiciently.
+"ould a circum&tance tend to becloud t"e bona ide& o
re&pondentQ& actuation, it could only reer to t"e &trained relation&"ip
ei&ting bet!een "im and complainant& broug"t about by t"ecumulative eect o t"e rever&e& Carlo& encountered in re&pondentQ&
&ala, on one "and, and t"e iling by complainant Carlo&, t"roug" Atty.
Buerrero, o t"e damage &uit again&t re&pondent, on t"e ot"er. 23 T"e
tet o t"e contempt order, "o!ever, yield& no indication t"at
re&pondent, in mi&ta)enly citing complainant& or direct contempt, !a&
prevailed upon by per&onal animo&ity or by a de&ire to eact revenge.
On t"e contrary, re&pondent &tre&&ed in "i& order t"at "e ob&erved
Lmaimum toleranceL in dealing !it" complainant&, previou& legal
&)irmi&"e& not!it"&tanding.
T"e act t"at re&pondent did not accord complainant& a "earing
nor inormed t"em beore"and o t"e c"arge& relative to t"e contempt
incident cannot, !it"out more, be indicative o bad ait" or malice. >or,
re&pondent labored under t"e impre&&ion, mi&ta)en a& it turned out to
be,
t"at complainant& committed an act con&tituting direct contempt
&ummarily puni&"able. 2 A&&uming, a& re&pondent did a&&ume, t"at
complainant& did indeed commit an act puni&"able by direct contempt,
t"en a ormal "earing !ould "ardly be nece&&ary.
Needle&& to under&core, t"e utili4ation by re&pondent o t"e long*
terminated criminal ca&e& a& t"e ve"icle or "i& contempt order ormed
a part o "i& error. $ad ait", "o!ever, cannot be inerred rom t"i&
particular error, per &e.
#ncidentally, t"e invocation in t"e contempt order o t"e ca&e&
Hagumbay and Cloribel i& not at all mi&placed a& complainant& no!
urge. To be &ure, re&pondent cited t"e&e ca&e& not &o muc" to &upport
Page 13 of 24
LEGETH- CANONS 10-13
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
14/24
t"e propriety o t"e contempt order a& to accentuate t"e perniciou&
eect o t"e u&e o intemperate language in pleading& on t"e orderly
admini&tration o @u&tice.
#n all, t"e a&&ailed act o t"e re&pondent @udge appear& to be a
ca&e o error o @udgment not &ub@ect to di&ciplinary action. T"e
deci&ion o t"i& Court in t"e con&olidated ca&e& o i&cal motu proprio po&tponed &aid
reinve&tigation due to t"e non*appearance o accu&ed and "i& coun&el
and re*&et t"e date or December 2, -:/.
A &erie& o po&tponement& !a& again iled by t"e accu&ed
cau&ing urt"er. delay& o t"e reinve&tigation. On une 2/, -:,
accu&ed and "i& coun&el appeared toget"er but reGue&ted or a period
o iteen '( day& !it"in !"ic" to ile a memorandum.
#n vie! o t"e epiration o t"e *day period, t"e #nve&tigating
>i&cal iled a manie&tation beore t"e court t"at t"e record& o t"e&e
ca&e& be returned and t"e trial on t"e merit& o t"e &ame be &et.
T"e court !it"out acting on &aid manie&tation, i&&ued an order
tran&erring t"e &i ':( ca&e& to t"e ne! branc" '$ranc" ;( o t"e Court
o >ir&t #n&tance at Mauban, ue4on. Ipon receipt by t"e latter o t"e
record& o t"e&e ca&e&, t"e arraignment and trial !ere &et or
December 3, -:.
On t"e latter date, t"e coun&el or t"e accu&ed &oug"t again t"e
po&tponement o t"e arraignment and t"i& !a& ollo!ed by more
po&tponement&, all at t"e in&tance o t"e accu&ed. 'Original record&,
5003*M6 pp. -0,-3,20 and 2(.
On Marc" 3, -:-, coun&el or t"e accu&ed moved or t"e
po&tponement o t"e arraignment and reGue&ted t"e court t"at t"e
record& be returned again to t"e Oice o t"e >i&cal or urt"er
reinve&tigation. T"i& !a& granted and t"e reinve&tigation !a& again &et
or May , -:-. T"e accu&ed and "i& coun&el, "o!ever, ailed to
appear and t"u&, t"e &aid reinve&tigation !a& re*&et or une 2, -:-.
On t"i& date, coun&el or accu&ed reGue&ted t"at "e be given ive '(
day& !it"in !"ic" to ile a !ritten &!orn &tatement o t"e accu&ed
!"ic" !ould con&titute t"e deen&e o t"e latter, &ub@ect to t"e cro&&*
eamination o t"e #nve&tigating >i&cal.
Con&idering t"e act t"at t"e period to ile &uc" &!orn &tatement
"ad already epired !it"out anyt"ing being iled, t"e record& o t"e
ca&e& !ere returned to t"e court !"ic" &et &aid ca&e& or arraignment
and trial on +eptember 2, -/0. On t"i& date, t"e accu&ed againmoved or po&tponement.
8"en t"e&e ca&e& !ere called or arraignment on +eptember ,
-/0, Demetrio ardin, pleaded not guilty to t"e crime a& c"arged,
ater !"ic" "e reGue&ted t"at t"e trial be po&tponed and re*&et or
+eptember 2-, -/0.
On +eptember 2-, -/0, t"e trial &c"eduled on t"at day !a&
po&tponed again on motion o coun&el or t"e accu&ed. T"e trial !a&
re*&et or October 2, -/0, !it" notice to bot" partie&.
On October 2, -/0, !"en t"e &aid criminal ca&e& !ere called
or "earing, no one appeared or t"e pro&ecution, ecept a &tate
!itne&&, Mr. Ce&ar Alcala o t"e %rovincial AuditorQ& oice !"o
remained &ilent during t"e proceeding&.
#nvo)ing "i& clientQ& con&titutional rig"t to &peedy trial and &ei4ing
t"e opportunity to ta)e advantage o t"e pro&ecutionQ& ailure to appear
on t"at day, t"e deen&e coun&el moved or t"e di&mi&&al o t"e ca&e&.
T"e re&pondent court granted t"e oral motion or di&mi&&al Lor
rea&on& o con&titutional rig"t& o t"e accu&ed Demetrio ardin. L
T!o Gue&tion& are no! rai&ed by t"e %eople in t"i& appeal1
#. Con&idering t"e actual &etting in t"e criminal ca&e& at bar, !a&
t"e re&pondent Court correct in di&mi&&ing t"e ca&e& and in predicating
t"e di&mi&&al on t"e rig"t o t"e deendant to a &peedy trial
##. Doe& t"e pre&ent appeal place t"e re&pondent accu&e in
double @eopardy
T"e re&pondent court committed a grave abu&e o di&cretion in
di&mi&&ing t"e ca&e& and in ba&ing t"e di&mi&&al on t"e con&titutional
rig"t o t"e accu&ed to &peedy trial. T"e rig"t to a &peedy trial mean&
t"at t"e accu&ed i& ree rom veatiou&, capriciou&, and oppre&&ive
delay&, it& &alutary ob@ective being to a&&ure t"at an innocent per&on
may be ree rom aniety and epen&e o a court litigation or, i ot"er!i&e, o "aving "i& guilt determined !it"in t"e &"orte&t po&&ible
time compatible !it" t"e pre&entation and con&ideration o !"atever
legitimate deen&e "e may interpo&e. '+ee Andre& v. Cacdac, 3
+CRA 2:(
5>rom a peru&al o t"e act&, it i& readily &een t"at all t"e delay& in
t"e pro&ecution o t"e ca&e& !ere cau&ed by t"e accu&ed "im&el.6 All
t"e po&tponement& o proceeding& !ere made at "i& in&tance and or
"i& be"al. rom t"e &tart o
t"e preliminary inve&tigation o t"e ca&e& up to t"e trial on t"e merit&,
t"e accu&ed al!ay& managed to delay t"e proceeding& t"roug"
po&tponement& and reGue&t& or reinve&tigation. 5#t !ould, t"ereore,
be a moc)ery o t"e criminal @u&tice &y&tem i t"e accu&ed !ould be
allo!ed to beneit rom "i& o!n !rongdoing& or tactical maneuver&
intended to ru&trate t"e admini&tration o @u&tice. $y "i& o!n deliberate
act&, "e i& deemed to "ave !aived or abandoned "i& rig"t to a &peedy
trial. #n t"e ca&e o Andre& v. Cacdac, 3 +CRA 2:, !e ruled16
#n t"i& ca&e, "o!ever, t"ere !a& a !aiver or abandonment o t"e
rig"t to a &peedy trial in t"e ir&t ca&e !"en t"e "erein petitioner&
&oug"t and obtained &everal po&tponement& o t"e trial1 ir&t, !"en
t"ey a&)ed or t"e deerment o t"e arraignment becau&e t"e accu&ed
Hadi&lao Tacipit !a& not pre&entE &econd, !"en t"ey a&)ed or t"e
po&tponement o t"e trial or Marc" , -: upon t"e ground t"at t"ey
"ave reGue&ted t"e %rovincial >i&cal o Cagayan or a reinve&tigation
Page 14 of 24
LEGETH- CANONS 10-13
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
15/24
o t"e ca&eE and inally, !"en t"ey agreed, !it" t"e pro&ecution, to
po&tpone t"e "earing &et or November 2, -: to anuary , -:-..
T"e di&mi&&al o t"e criminal ca&e& again&t t"e accu&ed by t"e
re&pondent court on t"e ground t"at "i& rig"t to &peedy trial "ad beer
violated !a& devoid o actual and legal ba&i&. T"e order
denying t"e motion or recon&ideration i& &imilarly inirm. T"ere
being no ba&i& or t"e Gue&tioned order&, t"ey are con&eGuently null
and void.
8ould a rein&tatement o t"e di&mi&&ed ca&e& place t"e accu&ed
in double @eopardy
#n order t"at t"e protection again&t double @eopardy may inure to
t"e beneit o an accu&ed, t"e ollo!ing reGui&ite& mu&t be pre&ent in
t"e ir&t pro&ecution1 'a( a valid complaint or inormationE 'b( a
competent courtE 'c( t"e deendant "ad pleaded to t"e c"argeE and 'd(
t"e deendant !a& acGuitted, or convicted, or t"e ca&e again&t "im !a&
di&mi&&ed or ot"er!i&e terminated !it"out "i& epre&& con&ent. 'Rule
/, +ection -, Rule& o CourtE %eople v. Hede&ma, /3 +CRA //(. T"e
la&t reGui&ite a&&ume& a valid acGuittal and a valid acGuittal
pre&uppo&e& a valid @udgment by a court o competent @uri&diction.
+ince in t"e in&tant ca&e&, t"e di&mi&&al !a& void or "aving been
i&&ued !it"out legal ba&i&, it ollo!& t"at t"e acGuittal broug"t about by
t"e di&mi&&al i& al&o void. or double @eopardy to attac", t"e general rule i& t"at t"e di&mi&&al o
t"e ca&e mu&t be !it"out t"e epre&& con&ent o t"e accu&ed. '%eople
v. +alico, %"il. /22E %eople v. Ob&ania, 23 +CRA 2-E %eople v.
%ilpa, /- +CRA E and %eople v. Cuevo, 0 +CRA 32(.
# t"e accu&ed "ad been denied "i& rig"t to &peedy trial or i &ome
ot"er ba&ic rig"t "ad been impaired, t"e doctrine o !aiver o t"e rig"t
to invo)e double @eopardy !ould not apply even i t"e accu&ed "ad
epre&&ly moved or t"e termination o proceeding&. #n t"e in&tant
ca&e, "o!ever, t"e deendant "ad deliberately u&ed all t"e available
dilatory tactic& "e could utili4e and abu&ed t"e principle t"at t"e
accu&ed mu&t be given every opportunity to di&prove t"e criminal
c"arge. T"e doctrine o double @eopardy !a& never intended or t"i&
purpo&e.=ven a& !e rule t"at t"e lo!er court acted !it" grave abu&e o
di&cretion, !e al&o rebu)e t"e attorney& or bot" t"e deen&e and t"e
pro&ecution and to a certain etent, t"e court it&el becau&e o t"e
breac" o dutie& to t"e court& and to t"e admini&tration o @u&tice
apparent in t"i& ca&e.
T"e dutie& o an attorney ound in Rule 3, +ection 20 include1 *
'd( To employ, or t"e purpo&e o maintaining t"e cau&e& conided
to "im, &uc" mean& only a& are con&i&tent !it" trut" and "onor,...
'g( Not to encourage eit"er t"e commencement or t"e
continuance o an action or proceeding, or delay any manQ& cau&e,
rom any corrupt motive or intere&t.
T"e dilatory tactic& o t"e deen&e coun&el and t"e ailure o bot"
t"e @udge and t"e i&cal to ta)e eective counter mea&ure& to obviate
t"e delaying act& con&titute ob&truction o @u&tice.
A& aptly &tared1
2.0- Ob&tructing t"e admini&tration o @u&tice
An attorney a& an oicer o t"e court i& called upon to a&&i&t in t"e
due admini&tration o @u&tice. Hi)e t"e court it&el, "e i& an in&trument to
advance it& cau&e. '+urigao Mineral Re&ervation $oard v&. Cloribel,
B.R. No. 0/, an. -, -/2, 3 +CRA E #n re Climaco, B.R. Adm.
Ca&e No. 3*, an. 2, -/, +CRA 0/( >or t"i& rea&on, any act
on t"e part o a la!yer t"at ob&truct&, pervert& or impede& t"e
admini&tration o @u&tice con&titute& mi&conduct and @u&tiie&
di&ciplinary action again&t "im. 'Cantorne v&. Duca&in / %"il, 23
5-326E De lo& +anto& v&. +agalongo& :- %"il. 0: 5-06(.
Act& !"ic" amount to ob&truction in t"e admini&tration o @u&tice
may ta)e many orm&. T"ey include &uc" act& a& in&tructing a
complaining !itne&& in a criminal action not to appear at t"e &c"eduled
"earing &o t"at t"e ca&e again&t t"e client, t"e accu&ed, !ould be
di&mi&&ed. 'Cantorne v&. Duca&in &upra( a&)ing a client to plead guilty
to a crime !"ic" t"e la!yer )no!& "i& client did not commit, 'Nueno v.
+anto&, %"il. / 5-336( advi&ing a client !"o i& detained or a
crime to e&cape rom pri&on, 'C. Medina v. Jan, B.R. No. 30-/, +ept.
30, -/( employing dilatory tactic& to ru&trate &ati&action o clearly
valid claim&, %a@are& v&. Abad +anto&, B.R. No. 2-3, Nov. 2-, -:-,
30 +CRA /( pro&ecuting clearly
rivolou& ca&e& or appeal& to drain t"e re&ource& o t"e ot"er
party and compel "im to &ubmit out o e"au&tion '+amar Mining Co.
v&. Arnado, B.R. No. 2230. uly 30, -:( and iling multiple petition&
or complaint& or a cau&e t"at "a& been previou&ly re@ected in t"e al&e
epectation o getting avorable action. 'Babriel v&. Court o Appeal&,
B.R. No. 3//, uly 30, -/:, /2 +CRA /3E Ramo& v&. %otenciano,
B.R. No. 2/0, Dec. 20, -/:, / +CRA 3E Macia& v. Iy Uim, B.R.
No. 3/, May 30, -/2, +CRA 2( Act& o t"i& or &imilar nature
are ground& or di&ciplinary action.L Agpalo Hegal =t"ic&, I.%. Ha!
Center, -0 =dition, pp. 0*0:(
T"e invocation o con&titutional rig"t& by t"e private re&pondent i&
!it"out merit.8OR=, t"e petition i& BRANT=D and t"e Gue&tioned
order& o t"e re&pondent court are "ereby +=T A+#D=. Criminal Ca&e&
No&. 003*M, 00*M, 00*M, 00:M, 00/*M, and 00*M are
rein&tated and t"e proper regional trial court i& ordered to proceed !it"
all deliberate &peed in t"e&e ca&e&.
+O ORD=R=D.
A.C. No. 3923. M%/ 30, 1993.
CONCORDIA . GARCIA, %o&'()!!t, *s. ATT#.
CRISANTO $. RANCISCO, -s'o!"-!t.
S#$$AUS
. H=BAH =T COIN+=HE ;#OHAT#ON
O> OAT< NOT D=HAJ ANJ MAN OR MON=J OR MAH#C=E+I+%=N+#ON >OR ON= J=AR >ROM %RACT#C= O> HA8 >OR
BRO++ A$I+= O> R#B R=COIR+= TO Tor t"i& &eriou&
tran&gre&&ion o t"e Code o %roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility, "e de&erve&
to be &anctioned, not only a& a puni&"ment or "i& mi&conduct but al&o
a& a !arning to ot"er la!yer& !"o may be inluenced by "i& eample.
Accordingly, "e i& "ereby +I+%=ND=D or ON= J=AR rom t"e
practice o la! and rom t"e en@oyment o all t"e rig"t& and privilege&
appurtenant to member&"ip o t"e %"ilippine bar.
R = + O H I T # O N
%=R CIR#AM, p1
#n a &!orn complaint iled !it" t"e Court on October :, --2,
Concordia $. Barcia &ee)& t"e di&barment o Atty. Cri&anto H.
>ranci&co.
On Marc" -, -:, Concordia $. Barcia and "er "u&band
Bodoredo, t"e Dioni&io &pou&e&, and >eli&a and Magdalena $aetiong
lea&"ed a parcel o land to +otero $aluyot Hee or a period o 2 year&beginning May , -:. De&pite repeated verbal and !ritten demand&,
Hee reu&ed to vacate ater t"e epiration o t"e lea&e. Hee claimed
t"at "e "ad an option to etend t"e lea&e or anot"er year& and t"e
rig"t o pre*emption over t"e property.
#n t"i& di&barment ca&e, t"e complainant claim& t"at HeeQ&
coun&el, re&pondent >ranci&co, commenced variou& &uit& beore
dierent court& to t"!art BarciaQ& rig"t to regain "er property and t"at
all t"e&e proceeding& !ere decided again&t Hee. T"e proceeding&
&temmed rom t"e &aid lea&e contract and involved t"e &ame i&&ue&
and partie&, t"u& violating t"e pro&cription again&t orum*&"opping.
Page 15 of 24
LEGETH- CANONS 10-13
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
16/24
Re&pondent, in "i& comment, &ay& t"at "e in&erted in deen&e o
"i& clientQ& rig"t only &uc" remedie& a& !ere aut"ori4ed by la!.
T"e tangle o recour&e& employed by >ranci&co i& narrated a&
ollo!&1
. On Marc" 2-, --, Hee, t"roug" >ranci&co, iled a complaint
again&t Barcia and t"e ot"er le&&or& or &peciic perormance and
reconveyance !it" damage& in t"e Regional Trial Court o ue4on
City. T"i& !a& doc)eted a& Civil Ca&e No. *-*2. On une -,
--, Barcia iled a motion to di&mi&& t"e complaint on t"e ground& o
ailure to &tate a cau&e o action, lac"e& and pre&cription. T"e ca&e
!a& di&mi&&ed by udge >elimon Mendo4a on Augu&t 0, --.
2. On May 2-, --, Barcia and t"e ot"er le&&or& iled a
complaint or unla!ul detainer again&t Hee in t"e Metropolitan Trial
Court o ue4on City. T"i& !a& doc)eted a& Civil Ca&e No. .
T"roug" >ranci&co, Hee iled an an&!er alleging a& &pecial and
airmative deen&e t"e pendency o Civil Ca&e no. *-*2 in t"e
Regional Trial Court o ue4on City. On +eptember , --, udge
Marcelino $auti&ta i&&ued a re&olution re@ecting t"i& allegation on t"e
ground t"at t"e i&&ue& beore t"e t!o court& !ere &eparate and
dierent.
3. On October 2, --, Hee, t"roug" >ranci&co, iled !it" t"e
Regional Trial Court o ue4on City a petition or certiorari and
pro"ibition !it" preliminary in@unction again&t udge $auti&ta, Barcia
and t"e ot"er le&&or&. T"i& !a& doc)eted a& civil Ca&e No. *-*333.
#n iling t"i& petition, >ranci&co )ne! or &"ould "ave )no!n t"at it
violated t"e Rule on +ummary %rocedure pro"ibiting t"e iling o petition& or certiorari, mandamu& or pro"ibition again&t any
interlocutory order i&&ued by t"e court.
>ranci&co claim& t"at !"at "e appealed to t"e Regional Trial
Court in Civil Ca&e No. *-*333 !a& t"e denial o "i& prayer or
di&mi&&al o Civil Ca&e No. . T"i& i& not true. Civil Ca&e *-*
333 !a& clearly a &pecial civil action and not an appeal.
On November 3, --, udge Abra"am ;era i&&ued an order
en@oining udge $auti&ta rom proceeding !it" t"e trial o t"e unla!ul
detainer ca&e. Ipon motion o t"e complainant, "o!ever, t"e in@unction
!a& &et a&ide and Civil Ca&e No. *-*333 !a& di&mi&&ed on
anuary -, --0. Hee did not appeal.
. On April :, --0, Hee t"roug" >ranci&co, iled a petition or
certiorari and pro"ibition !it" prayer or preliminary in@unction !it" t"e
Court o Appeal& again&t udge ;era, udge +ing4on, Barcia and t"e
ot"er le&&or&. Doc)eted a& CA B.R. +p No. 20/:, t"e petition
a&&ailed t"e anuary -, --0 order o udge ;era di&mi&&ing Civil
Ca&e No. *-*333. On May 3, --, t"e petition !a& denied.
. On une , --0, udge +ing4on decided Civil Ca&e no.
in avor o complainant Barcia and t"e ot"er le&&or&. Hee did not
appeal. #n&tead, on, une 2, --0, t"roug" >ranci&co again, "e iled a
petition again&t udge +ing4on and t"e ot"er le&&or& or certiorari and
annulment o t"e deci&ion in Civil Ca&e No. and damage& !it"
prayer or i&&uance o preliminary in@unction. T"i& !a& doc)eted a&
Civil ca&e No. -0*2 in t"e Regional Trial Court o ue4on City,
$ranc" -, pre&ided by udge Ce&ar C. %arale@o.
#n >ranci&coQ& comment beore u&, "e allege& t"at Civil Ca&e No.
*-0*2 i& an appeal rom t"e unla!ul detainer ca&e. Again, "e lie&.
Civil Ca&e No. *-0*2 !a& a &peciied civil action and not an
appeal.On uly 2, --0, BarciaQ& group iled an Omnibu& Motion to
Di&mi&& Civil Ca&e No. -0*2. On uly 3, --0, udge %arale@o
i&&ued an order en@oining udge +ing4on rom enorcing t"e deci&ion in
t"at ca&e. Barcia attac)ed t"i& order in a petition or certiorari and
pro"ibition !it" prayer or preliminary in@unction doc)eted a& CA +p.
No. 223-2. T"e petition !a& granted by t"e Court o Appeal& on
+eptember -, --, on t"e ground t"at t"e @udgment in t"e unla!ul
detainer ca&e "ad come inal and eecutory a& une 30, --0.
:. On +eptember 2, --, Barcia iled a motion or eecution in
t"e unla!ul detainer ca&e. On +eptember 2/, --, Hee, t"roug"
>ranci&co, iled a motion to in"ibit udge +ing4on and to deer t"e
"earing o t"e motion. A !rit o eecution !a& nonet"ele&& i&&ued by
udge +ing4on on October , --.
/. T!o day& later, Hee, t"roug" >ranci&co, iled !it" t"e +upreme
Court a petition or certiorari !it" preliminary in@unction and temporary
re&training order again&t t"e Court o Appeal&, udge +ing4on, Barcia
and t"e ot"er le&&or&. T"i& Court denied t"e petition on anuary 2/,
--2, and recon&ideration on April , --2.
. >inally, Hee, &till t"roug" >ranci&co, iled a petition or certiorari
!it" preliminary in@unction again&t udge +ing4on, Barcia and t"e
ot"er le&&or& in t"e Regional Trial Court o ue4on City to &et a&ide
and declare t"e !rit& o eecution in Civil Ca&e No. . T"i& !a&
di&mi&&ed on Augu&t , --2, and Hee, t"roug" >ranci&co, iled a
motion or recon&ideration. According to >ranci&co, "e !a& relieved a&
coun&el !"ile t"i& motion !a& pending.
A la!yer o!e& idelity to t"e cau&e o "i& client but not at t"e
epen&e o trut" and t"e admini&tration o @u&tice.
T"e cau&e o t"e re&pondentQ& client in obviou&ly !it"out merit.
T"e re&pondent !a& a!are o t"i& act !"en "e !ilully re&orted to t"e
gambit& &ummari4ed above, continuou&ly &ee)ing relie t"at !a&
con&i&tently denied, a& "e &"ould "ave epected. ranci&co too) "i& oat" a& a la!yer on Marc" 2,
-:. Con&idering "i& age and eperience in t"e practice o t"e la!&,
"e &"ould "ave )no!n better t"an to trile !it" it and to u&e it a& an
in&trument or "ara&&ment o t"e complainant and t"e mi&u&e o
@udicial proce&&e&. >or t"i& &eriou& tran&gre&&ion o t"e Code o
%roe&&ional Re&pon&ibility, "e de&erve& to be &anctioned, not only a&
puni&"ment or "i& mi&conduct but al&o a& a !arning to ot"er la!yer&
!"o may be inluenced by "i& eample. Accordingly, "e i& "ereby +I+%=ND=D or ON= J=AR rom t"e
practice o la! and rom t"e en@oyment o all t"e rig"t& and privilege&
appurtenant to member&"ip in t"e %"ilippine bar.
Het a copy o t"i& Re&olution be &erved immediately on t"e
re&pondent and circulari4ed to all court& and t"e #ntegrated $ar o t"e
%"ilippine&.
+O ORD=R=D.
G.R. No. $33 O%to7- 1, 19
CAPT. CONRADO M. CAAGUI, '-t)t)o!-, *s. +ON.
COURT O APPEA$S T+IRD DIVISION, !" T+E PEOP$E
O T+E P+I$IPPINES, -s'o!"-!ts, EUGENIO M.
MI$$ADO, -s'o!"-!t.R E S O $ U T I O N
TEE+AN=EE, .5
T"e Court ind& re&pondent, Attorney =ugenio M. Millado, guilty o
gro&& negligence in not "aving complied !it" a L&"o! cau&eL
re&olution and o abu&ing t"e rig"t o recour&e to t"e Court by iling
multiple petition& or t"e &ame cau&e in t"e al&e epectation o getting
avorable action rom one divi&ion a& again&t t"e adver&e action o t"e
ot"er divi&ion. T"e Court deem& "i& &u&pen&ion rom t"e practice o
la! &ince >ebruary, -/ a& &uicient penalty and no! lit& "i&
&u&pen&ion !it" t"e !arning t"at t"e commi&&ion in t"e uture by
re&pondent o t"e &ame or ot"er inraction& &"all be dealt !it"
&everely.
Inder it& Re&olution o November 20, -/, t"e Court, acting on
a t"ird petition or revie! o a Court o Appeal& deci&ion airmingpetitionerQ& conviction o t"e crime o malver&ation o public und&, a&
iled on November 3, -/ by "i& attorney, =ugenio M. Millado, !it"
addre&& at Uoronadal, +out" Cotabato, ordered t"at &aid petition be
epunged rom t"e record& and reGuired LAtty. =ugenio Millado to
+
8/9/2019 canon cases 10-13 full txts
17/24
again&t t"e adver&e action o t"e ot"er divi&ion, &ince L&uc" conduct
!ould tend to trile !it" t"e Court and impede, ob&truct and degrade
t"e admini&tration o @u&tice,L a& ollo!&1
#n a &imilar ca&e 'H*3/, Teodoro >o@a& v&. CA(, t"e Court per
it& re&olution o Marc" 20, -/ admoni&"ed t"at L'H(itigant& and t"eir
coun&el& are !arned under pain o contempt and di&ciplinary action
t"at a party !"o "a& already ailed to "ave a deci&ion o t"
