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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
2/13
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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. )
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
6/13
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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.
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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.
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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
8/20/2019 Ethics ChapterIII.docx
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