Scribd
Upload
66 views1 page

Legal Ethics Case: Lubiano v. Gordolla

1. Lubiano v. Gordolla involved a motion for reconsideration filed by lawyer Gordolla on behalf of his client Robina Farms, Inc. where he made disparaging remarks about the opposing party, decision, and sheriff's office. 2. Gordolla argued the statements were covered by absolute privilege as they were relevant to the case, but Lubiano charged him for failing to observe expected standards as a lawyer. 3. The Court ruled the statements were not enough for disbarment due to privilege, but Gordolla must pay a fine of P200 and was warned further violations would result in harsher punishment, as lawyers remain subject to disciplinary powers even when

Uploaded by

Magr Esca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views1 page

Legal Ethics Case: Lubiano v. Gordolla

1. Lubiano v. Gordolla involved a motion for reconsideration filed by lawyer Gordolla on behalf of his client Robina Farms, Inc. where he made disparaging remarks about the opposing party, decision, and sheriff's office. 2. Gordolla argued the statements were covered by absolute privilege as they were relevant to the case, but Lubiano charged him for failing to observe expected standards as a lawyer. 3. The Court ruled the statements were not enough for disbarment due to privilege, but Gordolla must pay a fine of P200 and was warned further violations would result in harsher punishment, as lawyers remain subject to disciplinary powers even when

Uploaded by

Magr Esca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Lubiano v.

Gordolla

 A motion for reconsideration filed by Gordolla as counsel for Robina Farms, Inc., he described
the award of separation pay to the complainant as "ill-gotten wealth", the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission as an "unknowing" one, and the sheriff’s office as "a
partner in ‘crime’."
 Respondent attributed said statements to his zeal and enthusiasm in the performance of his
duty to uphold his client’s case and argued that they are covered by the mantle of absolute
privileged communication, being relevant and pertinent to the subject of inquiry in the NLRC
case.
 Because of this, Complainant Lubiano charged respondent Gordolla or his failure to observe the
standard expected of him as a member of the Bar.

According to the Court, despite the fact that the language of the respondent is not a sufficient
cause for disbarment and the rule of absolute privileged communication absolves beforehand the
lawyer from civil and criminal liability based on the statements made in the pleadings, he remains
subject to the Court’s supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the observance of his duty as a
member of the legal profession.

Respondent Gordolla is ordered to pay a fine of P200.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and warned that a repetition of a similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Rationale:

1. The Canons of Professional Ethics imposes upon the lawyer the duty of maintaining a
respectful attitude towards the court.

2. Lawyers remain subject to court’s disciplinary powers; although statements made in pleadings
are privileged.

You might also like