Ethics ChapterIII.docx

8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx

1/13

Legal Ethics : Chapter 3 – Code of Professional ResponsibilityCASE FACTS ISSUE RULING

Serana vs.

Sandiganbayan

- Dan

Facts: Accused movant charged for the crime of estafa is a

government scholar and a student regent of the University

of the Phillipines, Diliman, Quezon City. While in the

performance of her official functions, she represented to

former President Estrada that the renovation of theVinzons Hall of the UP will be renovated and renamed as

Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall and for which

purpose accused requested the amount of P15,000,000.00.

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan had no

jurisdiction over her person because as a UP student

regent, she was not a public officer due to the following:

1.) that being merely a member in representation of the

student body since she merely represented her peers; 2.)

that she was a simple student and did not receive any

salary as a UP student regent; and 3.) she does not fall

under Salary Grade 27.

The Ombudsman contends that petitioner, as a member of

the BOR is a public officer, since she had the general

powers of administration and exercise the corporate

powers of UP. Compensation is not an essential part of

public office.

Moreover, the Charter of the University of the Philippines

reveals that the Board of Regents, to which

accused‐movant belongs, exclusively exercises the general

powers of administration and corporate powers in the

university. It is well‐established in corporation law that the

corporation can act only through its board of directors, or

board of trustees in the case of non‐stock corporations.Lastly, petitioners counsel misquoted his reference to

Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as a quotation from Section 4

of R.A. No. 3019.

WON the counsel

misqouted or

misrepresent the

provision of the law

under canon 10 rule10.2.

yes

Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness

and honesty to the Court.

Rule 10.2 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote

or mi srepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel,

or the text of a decision or authority, or

knowingly cite as law a provision already

rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or

assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

As a parting note, petitioner’s counsel, Renato G. dela Cruz,

misrepresented his reference to Section 4 of P.D. No.1606 as

a quotation from Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019. A review of his

motion to quash, the instant petition for certiorari and his

memorandum, unveils themisquotation.We urgepetitioner’s

counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.02 of the Rules stating that

"a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent."

The Court stressed the importance of this rule in Pangan v.

Ramos, where Atty Dionisio D. Ramos used the name Pedro

D.D. Ramos in connection with a criminal case. The Court

ruled that Atty. Ramos resorted to deceptionby usinga name

different from that with which he was authorized. We

severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a

repetition may warrant suspension or disbarment.

Weadmonishpetitioner’s counsel to be morecarefuland

accurate in his citation. A lawyer’s conduct before the court

should be characterized by candor and fairness. The

administration of justice wouldgravelysuffer if lawyers do not

act with complete candor and honesty before the court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit .

Young vs. Batuegas

- Jezz

Atty. Walter Young filed a disbarment case against Attys.

Ceasar Batuegas, Miguelito Llantino and Franklin Susa for

allegedly committing falsehood in court and violating the

Did

respondents‐counsel

commit deliberate

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the IBP‐CBD

finding respondents‐counsel guilty of committing deliberate

falsehood. Respondents‐counsel craftily concealed the truth

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html#fnt56


2/13


3/13

Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her

marriage with respondent in RTC CEBU while there is

another case related to the complaint for annulment of

marriage which is pending before the CA.

Respondent went to complainants residence in Tanjay City,

Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their 2

minor children be surrendered to him. He showed

complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issuedby the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his

motion for temporary child custody. Complainant called up

her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not

received any motion for temporary child custody filed by

respondent.

Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the

alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent

failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the

resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates:

November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing

something amiss, she refused to give custody of their

children to respondent.

While complainant was with her children in the ABC

Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied

by armed men(allegedly NBI), arrived and demanded that

she surrender to him the custody of their children. He

threatened to forcefully take them away. Alarmed, Police

response was sought and they brought the to Police

Station to peacefully settle matters. complainant agreed to

allow the children to sleep with respondent for one night

on condition that he would not take them away fromTanjay City. This agreement was entered into in the

presence of Tanjay City Chief of Police Juanito Condes and

NBI Investigator Roger Sususco, among others.

Early morning a van arrived at the hotel where respondent

and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod

City. Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the

children to another room, where they stayed until later in

the morning. On the same day, respondent filed with the

Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City

authority , or knowingly cite as a law a provision already

rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a

fact that which has not been proved.

Records show that respondent used offensive language in his

pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. A

lawyer's language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic

but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with thedignity of the legal profession.The lawyers arguments whether

written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing

counsel and should be of such words as may be properly

addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling

complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive

congenital prevaricator , hardly measures to the sobriety of

speech demanded of a lawyer.

They constitute gross misconduct and the sanctions for such

malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules

of Court which states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court, grounds therefore.‐ A member of the bar may be

disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the

Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross

misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by

reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,

or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take

before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience

appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.

Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for a period of two (2) years


4/13

or the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his

right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged

Court of Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant

verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a

certification dated January 18, 2002 from the Court of

Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering

complainant to surrender custody of their children to

respondent had been issued.

Hence, complainant filed the this complaint respondent

answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the

IBP‐Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report

and recommendation. The IBP‐CBD recommended that

respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a

period of three years with a warning that another offense

of this nature will result in his disbarment

Allied Banking

Corporation vs. Court of

Appeals

- Carlo

Olivares vs. Villalon, Jr

- Lyks

Yap‐Paras vs. Paras

- Jay Rosa Yap‐Paras, petitioner;

Atty. Justo Paras, respondent

Petitioner Rosa Yap‐Paras filed a Motion for Contempt

and/or Disbarment against respondent Atty. Justo Paras.

In February 14, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution

(committed acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct,

grossly immoral conduct in year 1998) and suspended Atty.

Paras from the practice of law for a period of 1 year, with a

warning.

During the pendency of the respondent’s motion for

resolution, petitioner alleged that Atty. Paras violated the

suspension order.

Whether or not

disbarment should

be imposed against

the respondent.

No , the Supreme Court found no sufficient basis to support

petitioner’s claims [he violated the suspension order].

However , all lawyers are expected to recognize the authority

of the Supreme Court and obey its lawful processes andorders.

A resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a

mere request, nor should it be complied with partially,

inadequately or selectively.

CANON 8: A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH

COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS

PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, and shall avoid harassing tactics

against opposing counsel. (Agpalo, p107)

( CANON 10: A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOODFAITH TO THE COURT. )


5/13

On July 18, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution denying

respondent’s motion. On the same date, the Court

required Atty. Paras to comment on the petitioner’s

motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, within 10 days

from notice, which he failed to do.

Atty. Paras admitted that he had been less than prudent,

and indeed fell short, of his obligation to comply with the

specific order of the Supreme Court (to comment on themotion for Contempt and/or Disbarment) due to his

deteriorating health condition.

The Court also reminded the parties to avoid further

squabbles and unnecessary filing of administrative cases

against each other. From the records, a number of cases

revealed a pervasive atmosphere of animosity between

respondent and petitioner’s counsels. Lawyers should treat

each other with courtesy, fairness, candor and civility.

Candor, fairness and truthfulness should characterize theconduct of a lawyer with other lawyers. (Agpalo, p107)

Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment was DENIED. Atty.

Justo Paras was REPRIMANDED for his failure to observe the

respect due the Court in not promptly complying with this

Court's resolution, with WARNING that a more drastic

punishment will be imposed upon him for a repetition of the

to the act.

Soriano vs. CA

- Renz

Habawel vs. CTA

- MonicaThe case was originally about a petition for

refund for the excess of realty taxes paid to a

City Government. The party involved was the

Surfield Development Corporation (SDC),

represented by Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F.

Medina, herein the petitioners. When the case

was assigned to the Court of Tax Appeals’ First

Division (CTA FD), the petition was denied for

lack of jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Habawel and Medina

sought reconsideration in behalf of SDC,

insisting that the CTA had jurisdiction pursuant

to Republic Act No. 9282; and arguing that the

CTA FD manifested its “lack of understanding

or respect” for the doctrine of stare decisis in not

applying the ruling in Ty v. Trampe, to the

effect that there was no need to file an appeal

before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals

Whether or not

the language

employed by the

petitioners in

their motion and

and compliance

were

contumacious,

and must be

held guilty of

direct contempt.

YES. The Court finds no sincerity and humility

when Habawel and Medina asked for apology. In

fact, the petitioners pointed the Courts alleged

ignorance and grave abuse of discretion. Their

chosen words are so strong, which brings disrepute

to the Courts honor and integrity. The CTA FD

further assailed that:

“The tone of an irate lawyer would almost always

reveal the sarcasm in the phrased used. The scurrilous attacks made in the guise of pointing out errors of judgment almost

always result to the destruction of the high esteem and regard

towards the Court.’

The CTA First Division did not abuse its

discretion, least of all gravely, in finding that the

petitioners committed direct contempt of court.

Canon 11 of the Code of Responsibility mandates

all attorneys to observe and maintain respect due to

the courts and to judicial officers and to insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.03 of the Code


6/13


7/13

grievousness of the error by calling a spade by

spade.

Therefore, the CTA First Division adjudged

both of the petitioners guilty of direct contempt

of court for failing to uphold their duty of

preserving the integrity and respect due to

sentencing each other to suffer imprisonment of

ten days and to pay P2,000.00 as fine. The

petitioners have come to the Supreme Court for

relief through certiorari.

Leonidas vs. Supnet

- Quini

On April 13, 1988 Union Bank with the petitioner as

counsel filed a complaint against the spouses Eddie and

Eliza Tamondong to collect the latter’s unpaid loan secured

from the bank to buy a motor vehicle

For lack of interest, RTC Pasay city dismissed the complaint

without prejudice. THe bank filed another complaint

against the spouses to collect the unpaid loan with a

prayer for a writ of replevin. THis case was presided by the

respondent judge.

The Tamondong spouses filed an urgent motion and

prayed for the ff reliefs: (1) to dismiss the civil case, (2) to

set aside the writ of replevin, (3) to order the immediate

return of the replevied vehicle and (4) to cite the bank and

the counsel of it for contempt of court for forum shopping

and for misleading the court.

Then the PASAY MTC acted on the urgent motion of the

spouses and cited the counsel and the bank in contempt.

Hence, the petitioner Atty. Tomas Leonidas filed an

administrative case against the respondent Judge for gross

ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, misconduct

and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of

justice, for citing him in contempt. He also contended that

he should not be held responsible for submitting a false

certificate against forum shopping for the simple reason

that he did not sign the certification.

w/n the judge can be

held liable for gross

ignorance of the law,

grave abuse of

authority,

misconduct and

conduct prejudicial

to the proper

administration of

justice, for citing the

petitioner in

contempt.

YES. A party cannot be held in indirect contempt for

disobeying the court order which is not addressed to him.

Petitioner should therefore not be punished for disregarding

an order that he was never meant to comply with in the first

place. On this point, the respondent judge clearly committed a

mistake. He should have been mindful that he never ordered

petitioner to returned the replevied vehicle. There was also no

evidence that petitioner was ever in possession of the replied

vehicle.

Courts are not powerless to compel obedience to their orders,

writs and processes. The power to punish persons for

contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the

preservation of order in all judicial proceedings and to the

reinforcement of their lawful orders and decisions. Without

the power to punish for contempt, courts would become

impotent to maintain the orderly administration of justice and

to compel observance to their lawful mandates. However,there is a limitation to this power, as it must be used

sparingly. It should be exercised on the preservative, not

vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory

idea of punishment.

THEREFORE, the Court en banc found respondent Judge guilty

of serious misconduct.


8/13

Respondent judge insist that he duly observed the

procedural requirement for declaring the petitioner in

indirect contempt.

OCA agrees with the ruling of the RTC declaring the

petitioner in contempt.

Re: Letter of the UP Law

Faculty entitled

“Restoring Integrity: A

statement by theFaculty of the UP

College of Law on the

allegations of plagiarism

and misrepresentation

in the SC”

- KP

The case of Vinuya, et.al. v. Executive Secretary written by

Assoc. Justice Mariano del Castillo, was decided unfavorably

against the petitioners. In the Motion for Reconsideration,

Attys. Harry Roque and Romel Bagares (counsel of petitioner

Malaya Lolas), posited for the first time their charge of

plagiarism.

Atty. Roque, in a column entitled “Plagiarized and Twisted”,

claimed that Prof.Evan Criddle,one of theauthors not properly

acknowledged in theVinuya decision,had beenplagiarized.The

column appeared in the Manila Standard Today. Dr. Mark Ellis

also wrote to the Court against the unauthorized use of hislaw

review article.

The Court formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical

Standards for the charges of plagiarism to Assoc Justice del

Castillo.

The statement entitled “RestoringIntegrity: A Statementby the

Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on

the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the

Supreme Court”,was postedin Newsbreakwebsiteand on Atty.

Roques blog. It was also reported on GMA News TV and Sun

Star, and likewise posted at the UP‐CoL bulletin board. 2 days

after the release of the statement, Dean Leonen submitted a

letter and a copy of the Statementto theCourt. It includedthe

names of 37 UP professors with the notation (SGD) appearing

beside each name, but does not contain the actual signatures.

Restoring Integrity contains these statements:

a) An extraordinary act of injustice has been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a

time of war.

b) Had theirhopescrushedby a singularly reprehensible act

of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of

the land

c) Assoc.Justiceof SChas committedplagiarism…..aserious

threat to the integrity and credibility of the Phil. Judicial System

d) Ponente merely copied select portions of other legal

writers’ works and interspersed them into the decision as if

they were his own, original work

e) High Courtactuallymisrepresentstheconclusionof their

(the plagiarized authors)work…bytransforming itintoan actof

intellectual fraud…

to mislead and deceive

a) Whether or not

the submission of the

respondents

satisfactorily explainwhy they should not

be disciplined as

members of the Bar

under Canons 1, 11,

and 13 and Rules

1.02 and 11.05 of the

CPR.

b) Whether or not

the separate

compliance of Dean

Leonen satisfactorily

explain why he

should not be

disciplined as a

member of the Bar

under Canon 10 and

Rules 10.01, 10.02

and 10.03.

a) Their submissions were found unsatisfactory by the SC.

With respect to good faith, respondents’ allegations presented two

main ideas: (a) the validity of their position regarding the plagiarismcharge against Justice Del Castillo, and (b) their pure motive to spur

this Court to take the correct action on said issue.

It is not the expression of respondents’ staunch belief that Justice

Del Castillo has committed a misconduct that the majority of this

Court has found so unbecoming in the Show Cause Resolution. No

matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his

cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and

engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts and the

legal profession into disrepute. This doctrine, should be applied in

this case with more reason, as the respondents, not parties to the

Vinuya case, denounced the Court and urged it to change its

decision therein, in a public statement using contumacious

language, which with temerity they subsequently submitted to the

Court for "proper disposition .”

That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya Decision in

favor of the Malaya Lolas was one of the objectives of the

Statement could be seen in the following paragraphs from the

same:

And in light of the significance of this decision to the quest for

justice not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the

world who have suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and

exploitation in times of war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and

justice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and

misinterpreted texts.

One wonders what sort of effect respondents were hoping for in

branding this Court as, among others, callous, dishonest and lackingin concern for the basic values of decency and respect. The Court

fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if we allow

respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to

effectively plead their cases and persuade others to their point of

view is to be offensive.

Moreover, the Court finds that there was indeed a lack of

observance of fidelity and due respect to the Court, particularly

when respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism in

the Vinuya decision and the merits of the Vinuya decision itself, at

the time of the Statement’s issuance, were still both pending final

disposition of the Court. These facts have been widely publicized.

On this point, respondents allege that at the time the Statement

was first drafted on July 27, 2010, they did not know of theconstitution of the Ethics Committee and they had issued the


9/13

f) Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathyand

nonchalance, belies a more alarming lack of concern for even

the most basic values of decency and respect

g) Clear and obvious plagiarism

h) Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the

petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts

i) Endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire SC

Moreover, the UP professors are calling for the resignation of

Justice del Castillo.

The Case

This is an administrative case of 37 respondent UP law

professors and members of the bar, in response to the show

cause resolution directing them to show cause why they

shouldn’t be disciplines as members of theBar forviolatingthe

Code of Professional Responsibility.

a) All of the professors (except Atty. Lynch who is not a

member of the Phil. Bar but of the State of Minnesota) were

directed to show cause for violation of Canons 1, 11, 13, and

Rules 1.02, and 11.05 of the CPR.

b) Deanon Marivic Leonen was directed to show cause for

violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01,10.02, and 10.03 of the CPR

for submitting through his letter, during pendency of the

motion for reconsideration and investigation before the Ethics

Committee, a dummy which is not a true and faithful

reproduction of the UP Law Faculty Statement.

Separate compliance of Dean Leonen

There were 3 drafts of Restoring Integrity Statement. The first

two are material.

a) Restoring Integrity I : contained actual signatures of 37

respondents

b) Restoring Integrity II : no actual signature of 37

respondnets, but reflects the signatories with the notation

(SGD). This is the copy sent to the Court

Restoring Integrity I was drafted, and circulated among faculty

members to sign. Dean Leonen was unaware thata Motionfor

Reconsideration on the Vinuyacase hadbeen filedand thatthe

court is in theprocessof conveningthe EthicsCommittee. After

the circulation of Restoring Integrity I, they reproduced it to

Restoring Integrity II with the names of those who signed the

first draft would appear, together with the (SGD) note.

Statement under the belief that this Court intended to take no

action on the ethics charge against Justice Del Castillo. Still, there

was a significant lapse of time from the drafting and printing of the

Statement on July 27, 2010 and its publication and submission to

this Court in early August when the Ethics Committee had already

been convened. If it is true that the respondents’ outrage was

fueled by their perception of indifference on the part of the Court

then, when it became known that the Court did intend to take

action, there was nothing to prevent respondents from

recalibrating the Statement to take this supervening event intoaccount in the interest of fairness.

Thus, the 35 respondents named should, notwithstanding their

claim of good faith, be reminded of their lawyerly duty, under

Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give due respect to the courts and to

refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to

influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the courts

and the administration of justice.

b) The submission of Dean Leonen was found unsatisfactory by

the SC

Deanon Leonen essentially denies that Restoring Integrity II was

not a true and faithful reproduction of the actual signed copy,

Restoring Integrity I, because looking at the text or the body, there

were no differences between the two. Court cannot subscribe to

Dean Leonen’s view.

The fact is that Dean Leonen did not from the beginning submit the

signed copy, Restoring Integrity I, to this Court and, instead,

submitted Restoring Integrity II with its retyped or "reformatted"

signature pages. It would turn out, according to Dean Leonen’s

account, that there were errors in the retyping of the signature

pages due to lapses of his unnamed staff. First, an unnamed

administrative officer in the dean’s office gave the dean inaccurate

information that led him to allow the inclusion of Justice Mendoza

as among the signatories of Restoring Integrity II. Second, an

unnamed staff also failed to type the name of Atty. Armovit when

encoding the signature pages of Restoring Integrity II when in fact

he had signed Restoring Integrity I.

Dean Leonen admits in a footnote that other professors hadlikewise only authorized him to indicate them as signatories and

had not in fact signed the Statement. Thus, at around the time

Restoring Integrity II was printed, posted and submitted to this

Court, at least one purported signatory thereto had not actually

signed the same. Contrary to Dean Leonen’s proposition, that is

precisely tantamount to making it appear to this Court that a

person or persons participated in an act when such person or

persons did not.

The Court likewise finds Dean Leonen’s Compliance unsatisfactory.

However, the Court is willing to ascribe these isolated lapses in

judgment of Dean Leonen to his misplaced zeal in pursuit of his

objectives. In due consideration of Dean Leonen’s professed good

intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish Dean Leonen


10/13

Justice Mendoza’sname wasamong thesignatories in Restoring

integrity II, when in fact he did not sign Restoring Integrity I.

What transpired :

When the dean’s staff talked to Justice Mendoza on the phone,

he [Justice Mendoza] indeed initially agreed to sign the

Restoring Integrity Statement as he fundamentally agreed with

its contents. However, Justice Mendoza didnot exactly say that

he authorized the dean to sign the Restoring Integrity

Statement.Rather,he inquired if he couldauthorize thedean to sign it for him as he was about to leave for the United States.

The dean’s staff informed him that theywould, at any rate,still

try to bring the Restoring Integrity Statement to him.

Due to some administrative difficulties, Justice Mendoza was

unable to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement before he left

for the U.S. the following week.

The staff was able to bring Restoring Integrity III to Justice

Mendoza when he went to the College to teach on 24

September 2010, a day after his arrivalfrom theU.S. Thistime,

Justice Mendoza declined to sign because it had already

become toocontroversial.He wanted to showdue deferenceto

the Court, being a former Assoc. Justice and not wishing to

unduly aggravate the situation.

for failing to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with

the Court as required under Canon 10.

Lim vs. Montano

- Abe Adonis


11/13

aware that the decision in said case has become final and

executory.

On the same date, respondent, in behalf of his clients (the

spouses Tomas See Tuazon) filed the Complaint for nullityof

TCT and other documents, reconveyance, maintenance of

physical possession before the RTC of Caloocan City,

eventually raffled to Branch 121 thereof (Civil Case No.

C‐19928).

This prompted the complainant to filethe instant complaintfor

disbarment against respondent alleging that the filing of Civil

Case No. C‐19928 was out of malice, pointing out that it

involves the same parties, the same causes of action and relief

prayed for as that of Civil Case No. C‐14542. Thus, the

complainant prayed that the respondent be disbarred and/or

suspended fromthe practiceof lawfor hisgross misconduct,on

the following allegation:

6. Evidently, I have been

subjected to harassment by the antics of

the respondent in filing a recycled case

docketed as Civil Case No. C‐19928 on

January 07, 2002. Respondent is guilty in

abetting the conduct of his clients, Sps.

Tuazon. He has clearly violated hislawyers

oath not to promote or sue groundless,

false or unlawful suits among others.

Instead of counseling his clients to abide

and obey the decision of our Supreme

Court, the final arbiter of all controversies

and disputes, he is showingdisrespect to a

final and executory decision of our court.

Respondent denied the allegations against him. While he

admitted that he filed Civil CaseNo. C‐19928 as counsel for the

plaintiff therein, he claimed that it was not filed withmalicious intent.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline assigned the case to

Commissioner Salvador L. Pea. Finding that there were no

factual issues in the case, Commissioner Pea terminated the

mandatory conference and ordered the parties to submit their

respective verified Position Papers, and, thereafter,considered

the case submitted for resolution.

The case was re‐assigned to Commissioner Doroteo B. Aguila

who submitted his Report and Recommendation dated May 9,

2005, finding the respondent guilty of misconduct. It was

recommended that respondent be meted a two months suspension from the practice of law.


12/13

TheBoard ofGovernors ofthe IBPCommissionon BarDiscipline

issued Resolution No. XVII‐2005‐108, adopting said Report and

Recommendation with the modification that respondent be

suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Edrial vs. Quilat‐Quilat

- Ate Heart

Parties who prayed for and were granted several

postponements and caused repeated delays cannot a sk for

the reopening of the trial for the purpose of presenting additional evidence. After squandering several

opportunities given them to ventilate their claims, they

can no longer complain of alleged violation of their right

to due process.

Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao - all

surnamed Quilat-Quilat -- filed an action for recovery of a

parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr.,

Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean -- all surnamed

Edrial -- and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. Counsel for

petitioners was first represented by Atty Lituanas but

withdraw his professional services and was replaced by

Atty. Sedillo who later withdraw but then re-entered his

appearance as counsel in the case. Atty. Eleccion of

Citizen Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) for the private

respondents.

Counsel for petitioners alleges that the addresses of his

clients on file in his law firm were incorrect; hence, the

notices and other forms of communication he had sent to

them were not received. He allegedly discovered this fact

only after he had filed his withdrawal as their counsel. He

also argues that the denial of the Motion to Reopen Trial

was "plainly capricious and oppressive" because private

respondents were equally guilty of delay and

procrastination. Finally, he maintains that allowing

petitioners to present their remaining evidence would be

"in the interest of substantial due process and humane

justice."

Respondent’s counsel disagree, reasoning that the trial

court thrice reconsidered its Order to submit the case for

decision; that is, petitioners were given several

opportunities to present their evidence, but they

squanderedthem. Petitioners, theyfurtherpoint out,were intentionally seeking to delay the resolution of the case

Whether of not

counsel of

petitioner violateCanon 12 Rule

12.03 and Rule

12.04.

YES.

The Court frowns on lawyers' practice of

repeatedly seeking extensions of time to file pleadings and thereafter simply letting the period

lapse without submitting any pleading or even any

explanation or manifestation of their failure. The

same principle applies more forcefully to motions

for continuance. Postponement is not a matter of

right, but of sound judicial discretion. Actions

thereon will not be disturbed by appellate courts in

the absence of a clear or manifest abuse of

discretion, resulting in a denial of substantial

justice.The Code of Professional Responsibility requires

that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to

file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, shall not let

the period lapse without submitting the same or

offering an explanation for their failure to do so

(Rule 12.03). Moreover, they should avoid any

action that would unduly delay a case, impede the

execution of a judgment or misuse court processes

(Rule 12.04).

For the benefit of the bench and bar, worthrepeating is the CA's reminder to petitioners'

counsel of his duty to his client and to the court:

"Being an officer of the court a lawyer is part of

the machinery in the administration of justice. Like

the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its

ends-the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and

inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt

satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should

not only help attain these objectives but should

likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices


13/13

because they were in physical possession of the land in

dispute.

Counsel's excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

The CA ruled that petitioners were given "more than

enough time" to complete their presentation of evidence.

Respondents rested theircase as earlyas September1992.

Petitioners' lawyer, at his own request, was allowed to

start presentingevidenceonly on April12, 1993.From that

day until April 26, 1996 or for a period of three years, counsel presented only two witnesses. The trial judge was

in fact liberal in granting petitioners' Motions for

Postponement. But enough was enough; when they

attempted to delay the trial some more, the trial judge

finally and correctly refused to go along.

Respondents also asked for continuances, but petitioners

were ultimately to blame for the inexcusable delay. The

case was submitted for decision three times ‐‐ on

December 11, 1990, October 30, 1992, and February 27,

1995 ‐ but petitioners and/or their counseldid not appear

in courteach time. Afterhavingfailed to takeadvantageof

opportunities to ventilate their claims below, parties may

nolongerbe accorded thesamechances,in theabsenceof

grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, as

in this case.

that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization,

charged as he is with the primary task of assisting

in the speedy and efficient administration of

justice.

Aguilar vs. Manila

Banking Corp

- Mikko

People vs. Nuguid

-

Patrick

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	heart-nuque
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Ethics ChapterIII.docx

Documents