Duties to the society
MONTECILLO v GICA
G.R. No. L-36800. October 21, 1974
ESGUERRA, J.
FACTS:
Montecillo was accused by Gica of slander. Atty. del Mar represented Montecillo and he
successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. The Court of Appeals reversed the same.
Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the
Court of Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices “knowingly rendered an unjust
decision” and “judgment has been rendered through negligence” and that the CA allowed itself
to be deceived.
But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices
of the CAthe CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.
Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA decision as to the Montecillo
case, but SC denied both. Del Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part among “the
corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice”.
Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices but the judge who handled
the case dismissed the same.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Del Mar should be held liable.
HELD: Yes. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As
an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he
owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken.
Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.
ORONCE v CA
G.R. No. 125766. October 19, 1998
ROMERO, J.
Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in
litigation using abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took
place while the case was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in
force.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Flaminiano should be held liable.
Held: Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in
contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making utterances showing
disrespect for the law & this Court, are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says
that they “peacefully” took over the property, such “peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance
of the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he has
flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting “activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”
DE YSASI v NLRC
G.R. No. 104599. March 11, 1994
REGALADO, J.
FACTS:
Atty. De Ysasi and De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The father owns a hacienda in
Negros Occidental. Son is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. Son III underwent
surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and while he’s nursing from his infections he
was terminated, without due process, by his father. Son filed against his father for illegal
dismissal before the NLRC. His father invoked that his son actually abandoned his work.
ISSUE:
Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
Whether they failed to settle without resorting to the courts.
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To constitute
abandonment, there must be a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable
reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second
element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. No such
intent was proven in this case.
Yes. Once again, we reiterate that the useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation
but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. Their relationship
allows them to settle the case even without resorting to the court.
PAJARES v ABAD SANTOS
G.R. NO. L-29543. November 29, 1969
TEEHANKEE, J.
FACTS:
Udharam Bazar & Co. sued Gloria Pajares for recovery of a certain sum of money. The lawsuit
was eventually assigned to the sala of the respondent Judge Abad Santos.
In its complaint the Udharam Bazar & Co. averred, that pajares received the ordered good but
never paid.
Instead of answering the complaint against her, Pajares, moved for a bill of particulars to require
Udharam Bazar & Co. to itemize the kinds of goods which she supposedly purchased from the
said company. Pajares alleged that the judge acted in grave abuse of discretion and sent petition
in CFI up to SC.
ISSUE:
Whether counsel for petitioner failed in his duty to encourage amicable settlement or a
confession of judgment to accord respect to the other party’s claim, saving his client additional
expenses and help prevent the clogging of court dockets.
RULING:
Yes. The appeal is frivolous and a plain trick to delay payment and prolong litigation
unnecessarily. Such attitude deserves condemnation, wasting as it does, the time that the courts
could well devote to meritorious cases.
This simple collection case has needlessly clogged the court dockets for over seven years. Had
appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to confess judgment and ask from her
creditor the reasonable time she needed to discharge her lawful indebtedness, the expenses of
litigation that she has incurred
PEOPLE v ROSQUETA
G.R. No. L-36138. January 31, 1974
FERNANDO, J.
FACTS:
Rosqueta Jr and two others were convicted of a crime. They appeal their conviction until it
reached the Supreme Court. Their lawyer (counsel de parte) Atty. Estacio, failed to file their
Brief. SC suspended him after failure to submit his explanation why he should not be disciplined
for failure to file said Brief. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration and said that he did prepare
an explanation the same being left with Rosqueta Sr (father of accused) for the latter to mail it,
however the latter’s house burned down together with it and he only knew it when filing MR.
Atty. Estacio also explained that his clients are withdrawing their appeal by reason of their
failure to raise the needed fund for the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Estacio’s suspension should continue.
HELD: No. His liability is mitigated. But the Supreme Court noted that Atty. Estacio has been
irresponsible, has been negligent and inattentive to his duty to his clients. Difficulty in the
amount necessary to pursue the appeal, does not necessarily conclude his connection with the
case. He should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a client,
he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he
prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in this case
is inexcusable.
De Roy v CA
G.R. No. 80718. January 29, 1988
Cortes, J:
FACTS
The firewall of a burned out building owned by Felisa De Roy collapsed and destroyed the
tailoring shop occupied by the family of Bernal resulting in injuries and to the death of Bernal’s
daughter. He was found guilty of gross negligence.
On the last day of filing a motion for reconsideration, De Roy’s counsel filed a motion for
extension. It was denied by the CA pursuant to the case of Habaluyas vs Japzon, the fifteen-day
period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
De Roy’s counsel however argued that the Habaluyas case should not be applicable because said
ruling was never published in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding.
HELD: No. There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decision in the Official
Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is bounden
duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme
Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated and published in the
advance reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and law
journals.
Jose v CA
G.R. No. L-38581. March 31, 1976
Munoz-Palma, J.
FACTS
Jose was caught possessing several firearms and explosives. He was prosecuted for illegally
possessing said firearms and explosives. he said that he is authorized to carry the explosives and
made a reservation to present his evidence at a later time. Trial Court convicted him for illegal
possession of hand grenade.
The Solicitor General opposed the MFR/New Trial as it stated that the evidence sought to be
presented by Jose does not fall under “newly discovered evidence”; that his permit to possess a
hand grenade was supposed to be known to Jose at the time of the trial and not discovered
thereafter.
Jose confirmed he is an undercover agent for the Philippine Constabulary; that being such, he
was authorized to carry firearms and explosives; that the reason why he did not disclose the same
immediately was because of his fear for reprisals considering that he resides in “Huklandia”
ISSUE: Whether there can be New tiral
HELD: Yes. This is a situation where a rigid application of rules of procedure must bow to the
overriding goal of courts of justice — to render justice where justice is due to secure to every
individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged.
That a prosecuting officer, as the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation and interest in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall be done, has the solemn
responsibility to assure the public that while guilt shall not escape, innocence shall not suffer.
People v Pineda
G.R. No. L-26222. July 21, 1967
Sanches, J.
FACTS:
Defendants are charged with five cases of murder. However, two of the defendants moved to
consolidate the five criminal cases into one and disregard the other four. Their plea is that said
cases arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse. The Judge approved to unify
all five (5) cases.
ISSUE: Whether the fiscal should insist the five criminal cases.
RULING
NO. A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a
particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the
averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion.
People v Madera
G.R. No. L-35133. May 31, 1974
Fernandez, J.
FACTS:
While Bana was sleeping in his house, he was shot by Madera. Behind Madera were Marianito
and Generoso. Elino Bana died before he could be brought to the hospital but he made a dying
statement wherein he positively identified Madera as his shooter. Two of Bana’s sons who were
at the house when the shooting happened identified Madera as the shooter as well as the two
behind him. All of them was convicted of murder.
ISSUE: Whether the Solicitor General can recommend acquittel of Marianito and Generoso
HELD: YES. insofar as Marianito and Generoso is concerned – Madera’s guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. But Marianito’s and Generoso’s guilt were not established. This is good a time
as any to emphasize upon those in charge of the prosecution of criminal cases that the
prosecutor's finest hour is not when he wins a case with the conviction of the accused. His finest
hour is still when, overcoming the advocate's natural obsession for victory, he stands up before
the Court and pleads not for the conviction of the accused but for his acquittal.
Tan v Gallardo
G.R. No. L-41213-14. October 5, 1976
Antonio, J.
FACTS
The petitioners were convicted of double murder case. Judge Gallardo was accused of partiality
after increasing the penalty to double life sentences, after meeting with Mayor Larazzabal, who
is the uncle of the victims. The Solicitor General moved for new trial but the private prosecutors
disagreed.
ISSUES
Whether the Private prosecutors can intervene.
HELD
No. Therefore, although the private prosecutors may be permitted to intervene, they are not in
control of the case, and their interests are subordinate to those of the People of the Philippines
represented by the fiscal.
People v Sendaydiego
G.R. Nos. L-33252-54. January 20, 1978
Aquino, J.
FACTS:
The acting provincial commander, who filed the complaints, manifested to the trial court that he
had authorized Atty. Millora to act as private prosecutor. The city fiscal, assistant provincial
fiscal, also authorized Atty. Millora and Atty. Ubiztondo to conduct examinations, subject to
their control and supervision.
Issue: Whether the Defense counsel ask for the inhibition of the private prosecutors.
Held: No. Private prosecutors may appear in criminal cases “under the direction and control of
the fiscal” and that “the provincial fiscal shall represent the province in any court.” The fiscals
were present in all the appearance of the private prosecutor and there was proper compliance.
Misamin v San Juan
A.C. No. 1418. August 31, 1976
Fernando, J.
Facts: respondent admits appearing as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the proceeding for
violations of minimum wage law before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila
Metropolitan Police. Respondent contends that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated
exercise of his profession. He contends that his appearance as counsel while holding a
government position is not among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension
or removal of attorneys.
Issue: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable.
Held: No. There can only be suspicion that he used his public office, despite being a public trust,
and not his legal knowledge, it shall not pass being unnoticed. Respondent, in his future
actuations as a member of the bar, should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in
the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not even take care
that his honor remains unsullied.
PCGG v Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005
Puno, J.
Former Solicitor General Mendoza, who has currently resumed the private practice of law, was
sought to be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case involving
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties being alleged to be ill
–gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. PCGG averred that there exists an adverse
interest on Mendoza since he was the one who filed a petition praying for assistance and
supervision of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General,
which bank was subsequently owned by the Lucio Tan group when it submitted the winning bid.
Issue: Whether there is conflict of interest
Ruling:
No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. the word “intervene” is applicable to both
adverse interest conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been found that neither of these
conflicts exists in the liquidation case and the sequestration case. Matter as any discrete,
isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and
specific party, and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.
Duty to the legal profession
Rivera v Angeles
A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000
Ynares-Santiago, J.
Facts: Atty. Angeles was the legal counsel of Rivera and 2 others in a civil case. Atty. Angeles
received almost PhP 50,000 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the
judgement. Atty. Angeles, however, never told his clients of the amount he had received and
never remitted the same to him, leaving them to discover such fact on their own.
Issue: whether he can be held administratively liable
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court stresses the importance of integrity and good moral character as
part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession. Thus, acts of deceit and
malpractice inexorably diminishes the respect of the litigants for the profession. 1-year
suspension.
Ducat Jr. v Villalon
Adm. Case No. 3910. August 14, 2000
De Leon, Jr., J.
FACTS
Villalon is the family lawyer of ducats. the original title of ducat sr was handed to villalon. The
handing over has two contradictory versions of reason, first because it is given as part of process
to convey the land because of the good services of villalon as villalon claimed, on the other hand,
allegedly because the latter
reasoned that he shall check the measurements of the land subject of title as alleged by ducat jr.
Ducat sr allegedly because of his want to give the land to villalon executed a deed of sale of the
land in favor of villalon. But because it was discovered that the land is registered in the name of
ducat jr,a deed of sale was forged to make it appear that there was one, ducusin was the notary
public there
Issue:
Ruling: villalon is guilty of gross misconduct for being involved in fraudulent notarization and
forgery of signature. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible
and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor. 1 yr suspension
Tan v Sabandal
B.M. No. 44. November 29, 1983
Melencio-Herrera, J.
Facts
Sabandal was a successful bar examinee in 1978. Without signing the rolls of Attorneys and
taking the lawyer’s oath, he has appeared in Court of Agrarian Relations, Civil cases, and
Criminal cases in court, stating that he is Atty. Sabandal.
Issue:
Held:
A successful Bar examinee, without having signed in the Roll of Attorneys and had taken the
Lawyer's Oath, is also subject to the Codes of Professional Ethics. A successful Bar examinee,
not yet being admitted in the Bar, who holds himself out as a lawyer by appearing in courts, is
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Even if respondent appeared merely in collaboration
with Atty. SenenAngeles in the several cases, that collaboration could only have been ostensibly
as a lawyer
In re Parazo
G.R. No. 120348. December 3, 1948
Montemayor, J.
FACTS: Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily of general
circulation, manifested a story with the headline— "CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST BAR TESTS,"
"Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School Favored,"
He stated in said report that students of a private university in Sampaloc
had been seen with copies of the mimeographed questions one week prior to the exams.
ISSUE: Whether or not Parazo may be compelled by the court to reveal his source within the
purview of the exemption “interest of the state.”
HELD: Yes, As the conduct of Bar Examinations and the Legal Profession is imbued with
General Interest and National Importance, it is but just that the immunity of newspapermen be
disregarded as to protecting its sources from investigation as to any anomaly that may be alleged
in the conduct of the Bar Examinations.
Narido v Linsangan
A.C. No. 944 . July 25, 1974
Fernando, J.
This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Risma represented Narido, an indigent client
against her employer De Dios, the client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. Atty. Risma vehemently
opposed the submission of a certain affidavit executed by De Dios because, he believed it is
perjured. When submitted, a disbarment case was filed.
Linsangan accused Risma of instigating his client to file an administrative case against him and
that it was only filed to spite him and is just a mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure that
they has an edge over the labor case.
ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.
HELD: No. There was no sufficient evidence for perjury and for the instigation. However, Risma
is admonished because he was found to collect 15% fees instead of allowed maximum of 10%.
Mutual bickering and unjustifiable recriminations, between brother attorneys detract from the
dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court.
Laput v remotigue
A.C. No. 219 . September 29, 1962
Labrador, J.
FACTS
Laput used to be the counsel for Barrera until the latter discharged her because she lost trust and
confidence in him due to dubious transactions in a testate proceeding. One of the lawyers
retained by Barrera to replace Laput was Remotigue. Remotigue, without notice to Laput, asked
the court to direct Laput to turn over certain documents and titles to Barrera so that the latter may
properly disposed some estate properties. Laput stubbornly kept the said documents as he
claimed that said estate properties are subject to his lien and that he needs to be paid first.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Laput has the right to keep said documents.
HELD:
No. It turns out that Laput’s attorney’s fees were already significantly paid while he was still the
counsel for Barrera hence he no longer has a lien to the properties of the estate. Therefore, he
cannot retain the certificates of title in question.
Camacho v Pangulayan
A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000
Vitug, J.
FACTS
9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published objectionable
features or articles in the school paper. While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology
and Re-admission Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the
knowledge of Atty. Camacho, their lawyer. without his knowledge the PANGULAYAN AND
ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) procured compromise agreements his clients
waived all kinds of claims they may have with AMA
ISSUE W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES is liable
HELD YES
RATIO
It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were
formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the expelled AMA students
PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to negotiate
with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least communicating the matter to
their lawyer CAMACHO
Hence, PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months
In re Sycip
G.R. No. X92-1. July 30, 1979
Melencio-Herrera, J.
FACTS
by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip and Atty. Ozaeta, prayed that they be allowed
to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed away.
They contended that the continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner is not
prohibited and when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that
no imposition or deception is practiced through this use.
Issue:Whether the deceased partner’s name may be retained
Held:
No.
no practice should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to the possibility of
deception.
The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue advantages
and disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able lawyer without connections will
have to make a name for himself starting from scratch. The court also made the difference from
the law firms and business corporations:
Merely because something is done as a matter of practice does not mean that Courts can rely on
the same for purposes of adjudication as a juridical custom.
Tan Tek Beng v David
A.C. No. 1261. December 29, 1983
Aquino, J.
Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into an agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng
will supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek Beng
50% of
the attorney’s fees collected as the latter’s commission. Atty. David also agreed not to deal with
clients
supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly without the latter’s consent. The agreement went sour due to
allegations
of double-cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme
Court but did
not seek the enforcement of their agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.
HELD:
Yes. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
agents or brokers is tantamount to malpractice. It should be kept in mind that lawyers, subject to
the exceptions given by the law, are prohibited from sharing his legal fees to those who are not in
the legal profession.
Lawyer’s duty to the courts
City Sheriff, Iligan City v Fortunado
G.R. No. 80390. March 27, 1998
Martinez, J.
FACTS
Fortunado owns a parcel of land mortgaged to Traders Commercial Bank. The Latter assigned its
rights to petitioner Bautista, who requested the City Sheriff for the foreclosure of the mortgage.
Respondent said the mortgage was already extinguished by the payment of the loan and that
petitioner already died. Respondents therefore pray for the dismissal of the petition. Court
required petitioner's counsel Atty. Emilio Abrogena to comment on the said Manifestation.
However, the copy of the resolution of the Court addressed to Atty. Abrogena was returned
unclaimed after three notices, 9 with the postmaster's remark "moved." In view of this
development, the Court considered the resolution as served.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s counsel violates his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Abrogena failed, to inform the trial court of the death of petitioner, a duty mandated
by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. His duties to the court are more
significant than those which he owes to his client. His first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct
ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics of the profession.
Reprimanded
Occena v Marquez
G.R. No. L-27396. September 30, 1974
Antonio J.
The gross value of the estate of the late Ogan is more than P2 million. Petitioners, Atty. Jesus
and Samuel Occeña, are the lawyers for the estate executrix, Mrs Occeña, defending the estate
against claims and protecting the interests of the estate. In order to expedite the settlement of
their deceased father's estate, the seven instituted heirs decided to enter into compromise with the
claimants, as a result of which the total amount of P220,000.00 in cash was awarded to the
claimants, including co-executor Atty. Binamira, his lawyers and his wife who is one of the
heirs.
Issue: Whether Atty. Binamira made false statements in order to favor the share of his wife.
Held:
Yes. Atty. Binamira Claimed to have duly executed mortgage which in reality is only a proposed
mortgage not signed by parties. Record showed only a certain P50,000 loan and not P100,000 as
he claimed against the petitioners. Stated that SAMUEL OCCENA became president of Bohol
Land Transport after making the P100,000 load. Corporate secretary of Bohol Land said
otherwise. Stated a certain income distributed to heirs when no income existed. Said that
executrix failed to state assets which are actually gifts or furniture payments to the executrix
personally. Mentioned that petitioners and executrix did not pay him when there was a receipt
signed. Guilty of Contempt
Chavez v Viola
A.C. No. 2152. April 19, 1991
FACTS
In 1966, The petition of Atty. Viola to seek Alvendia et al, against Chavez, be declared as bona
fide lessees in a land controversy was dismissed because of nonappearance by the Alvendias.
In 1977, Atty. Viola assisted same clients in applying for an original registration of title over the
same land in controversy in 1966. He insisted that his clients were the true owners of said land
because they acquired it by sale from Vistan way back in 1929. Chavez alleged that Viola
prepared conflicting claims in behalf of his clients.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Viola is in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
HELD: Yes. A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the courts. Courts are entitled to expect only
complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Five (5)
months suspension.
Chang Kian v Angsin
G.R. No. L-28131. February 28, 1972
Teehankee, J.
Facts:
Plaintiff Kian filed a civil complaint against defendant. On the other hand, defendant filed a
criminal complaint against plaintiff.. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the civil case on the
ground that, under the rules, after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising
from the same offense can be prosecuted. The Supreme Court ruled the it is moot and academic
and the counsels failed to inform about the termination of the criminal case long before the
petition reached the SC
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyers violated their duties to the court when they failed to notify the court
about the finality of the criminal case?
Ruling:
Yes.
The Court notes with regret that had the counsels, as officers of the courts, but faithfully
complied with their duty to deal with the courts in truth and candor, and promptly manifested to
the appellate court the above developments, all which have made the principal issue at bar moot
and academic, this case would then have been disposed of and need not have been certified to
this Court, and the time needed by it to devote to the prompt disposition of meritorious cases
need not have been thus dissipated
Casals v Cusi
G.R. No. L-35766. July 12, 1973
Teehankee, J.
Facts:
Upon the filing of the petition at bar for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction, the Court as per its resolution resolved, without giving due course to the
petition, to require respondents to comment thereon within ten days from notice and to issue a
temporary restraining order restraining respondent court inter alia from proceeding with the
hearing of the case pending before it below.
Despite notice and order of the court, Atty. Delante, as counsel for respondents, had repeatedly
failed to file the required comment, specifically, he failed three (3) times to file it.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Delante violated his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. A lawyer must do his best to honor his oath, as there would be a great detriment to, if not a
failure of the administration of justice if courts could not rely on the submissions and
representations made by lawyers in the conduct of a case. Three (3) months suspension.
Comelec v Noynay
G.R. No. 132365. July 9, 1998
Davide, Jr., J.
Facts
In a motion for reconsideration, petitioner’s counsel Atty. Balbune incorrectly cited a decision of
the Supreme Court: “x x x whether the Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over
election offenses is already a settled issue in the case of Alberto Naldeza -vs- Judge Juan
Lavilles, x x x”
Also, in this petition, Atty. Balbuena states:
“x x x in the case of "Alberto -vs- Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr.," 245 SCRA 286 x x x”
Issue:
Whether incorrect citing of a decision of the Supreme Court violates the duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. If Atty. Balbuena was diligent enough, he would have known that the correct name of the
complainant in the case referred to is neither Alberto Naldeza nor Alberto alone, but ALBERTO
NALDOZA. Moreover, the case was not reported in volume 245 but in volume 254 of the
SCRA.
Worse, Atty. Balbuena deliberately made it appear that the quoted portions were findings of the
SC when it is just a part of the memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision.
Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 14 mandates that a lawyer
shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v Cloribel
G.R. No. L-27072. January 9, 1970
Sanchez, J.
FACTS
Scattered in Atty. Santiago’s motion were other statements where he attacked the 1968 decision
of the Supreme Court, which is unfavorable to his client, as false, erroneous, and illegal.
Atty. Santiago sought the inhibition of two Justices: Justice Castro, because allegedly, he is the
brother of the vice president of the opposing party. And Chief Justice Concepcion because
immediately after the 1968 decision, his son was appointed to a significant position in the
government, implying that their decision was unfair and influenced.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Santiago is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, like the court itself, an instrument or
agency to advance the ends of justice. His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the
courts to which he owes fidelity, not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Fine
only.
De Gracia v Warden of Makati
G.R. No. L-42032. January 9, 1976
Fernando, J.
Facts:
De Gracia was charged for frustrated homicide, which later amended to a lesser offense of
serious physical injuries. To this charge, petitioner pleaded guilty. After serving his sentence he
was not released on the ground the prosecutor opposed it because the victim already died,
making him liable to homicide. Writ of Habeas Corpus was petitioned.
On the date of the hearing, petitioner and his counsel failed to appear, but left a manifestation
that petitioner was already released, and consequently, the petition is now moot and academic.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s counsel violated his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. It would appear, therefore, that with the release of petitioner, the matter had indeed become
moot and academic. That disposes of this petition, except for one final note. There was a lapse in
judicial propriety by counsel Salvador N. Beltran who did not even take the trouble of appearing
in Court on the very day his own petition was reset for hearing, a lapse explicable, it may be
assumed, by his comparative inexperience and paucity of practice before this Tribunal. It suffices
to call his attention to such failing by way of guidance for his future actuations as a member of
the bar.
Buenaseda v Flavier
G.R. No. 106719. September 21, 1993
Quiason, J.
FACTS:
The NCMH Nurses Association (NCMH) filed a case of graft and corruption against Dr.
Buenaseda and other officials of DOH. DOH Secretary Flavier carried out the suspension order
of the Ombudsman
Allegedly, the lawyers of Buenaseda et al advised them not to obey the suspension order, which
is a lawful order from a duly constituted authority. NCMH maintains that such advice from the
lawyers constitute a violation against the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Ombudsman has the power to suspend government officials.
Whether or not a Motion for Disbarment may be filed in a special civil action.
HELD: Yes, the Ombudsman may impose preventive suspension and recommend punitive
suspension orders.
No.
It cannot be filed in this special civil action. However, The language of a lawyer, both oral or
written, must be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and
with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession. Besides, the use of
impassioned language in pleadings, more often than not, creates more heat than light.
Santos v Cruz
A.M. No. 491-MJ. October 30, 1980
Fernandez, J.
Facts:
Santos charged Municipal Judg. Cruz with partiality and conduct unbecoming a judge for having
intervened with and/or prevented the complainant in filing cases.The complaint was referred to
Municipal Judge Cruz for immediate comment. The transcript shows that during the formal
investigation conducted by the respondent judge, while cross-examining the witness, Cano,
respondent lost his temper and said: "You can go to hell I don't care or where do you want to go
Mr. Cano".
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge violated the code of professional responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes. Although there’s no partiality, the Judge was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge
by uttering intemperate language during the trial of the case and was imposed a penalty of fine
equivalent to one (1) month salary
People v Taneo
G.R. No. 117683. January 16, 1998
Per Curiam
Facts:
Teofilo Taneo was convicted of the crime of rape and to suffer "the penalty of death" and "to
indemnify the offended woman, Mencina Taneo, as a deterrent to other fathers from sexually
molesting their own daughters; On automatic review, appellant assigns as errors that
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS MENCINA TANEO WHICH IS HIGHLY
INCREDIBLE AND CONTRADICTORY.
And that they GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN EVIDENCE THE MEDICAL
FINDINGS OF DRA. [] MACACHOR AS CONDUCTED ON THE PERSON OF THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MENCINA TANEO AND IN INCORRECTLY ADOPTING ITS
OWN BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH
CLEARLY IS BEYOND ITS ADJUDICATIVE POWER TO DO SO.
Issue:
Whether or not counsel of appellant violates his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. It is unfortunate that counsel for appellant has made a hasty accusation against the trial
court for the above pronouncement as "taking a partial and biased position" and having adopted
"its own biased interpretation of the physical evidence." No any cogent and valid ground in the
case could justify such a grave imputation upon a member of the bench who merely performed
his function.
Counsel should be reminded of his duty to observe and maintain respect due the courts of justice
and judicial officers. Arguments, written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and
opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another.
Urbina v maceren
A.C. No. 288-J. June 19, 1974
Teehankee, J.
FACTS
Atty. Urbina and Atty. Gesmundo lost a case in the sala of Judge Maceren. The two lawyers
then filed a criminal case against Maceren for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Prior to
dismissal by the fiscal, Urbina received a phone call from another lawyer who threatened him
that if he shall not withdraw the criminal case, he will be killed; that said threat was made by
Judge Maceren through Atty. Esguerra.
Judge Maceren stated that he issued the judgment in good faith and that he made no threats
against Urbina considering that if Urbina did withdraw, there is still Atty. Gesmundo who can
continue the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not Urbina’s suit should prosper.
HELD: No. Ths Supreme Court gave credence to Maceren’s statement as opposed to Urbina’s
bare allegations which were not supported by evidence.
The Supreme Court also condemned Urbina’s use of disrespectful language. A lawyer owes
fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients and that the filing on behalf of disgruntled litigants
of unfounded or frivolous charges against inferior court judges and the use of offensive and
intemperate language as a means of harassing judges unduly burdens the courts.
