Scribd
Upload
582 views2 pages

Canete Vs Puti

Carmelita Canete filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Artemio Puti with the Commission on Bar Discipline for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility based on three circumstances: appearing in court drunk, insulting prosecutors, and disrespecting the court by claiming bias. The IBP found Atty. Puti guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canons of the CPR and suspended him from practice for six months. The court agreed Atty. Puti was guilty of inappropriate language against opposing counsel and the judge in violation of Canons 8 and 11. However, the court disagreed with the six-month suspension, finding his misconduct was simple rather than grave, and instead reprimanded him with a stern

Uploaded by

Joshua Meracap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
582 views2 pages

Canete Vs Puti

Carmelita Canete filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Artemio Puti with the Commission on Bar Discipline for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility based on three circumstances: appearing in court drunk, insulting prosecutors, and disrespecting the court by claiming bias. The IBP found Atty. Puti guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canons of the CPR and suspended him from practice for six months. The court agreed Atty. Puti was guilty of inappropriate language against opposing counsel and the judge in violation of Canons 8 and 11. However, the court disagreed with the six-month suspension, finding his misconduct was simple rather than grave, and instead reprimanded him with a stern

Uploaded by

Joshua Meracap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

A.C. No. 10949 [Formerly CBD Case No.

13-3915]
CARMELITA CANETE, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. ARTEMIO PUTI, Respondent

FACTS:
Canete filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Puti with the Commission on Bar
Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Canete averred that Atty. Puti violated the
Canons of Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) based on the following
circumstances: (1) appearing in the hearings while drunk; (2) provoking and insulting
the prosecutors which he utters the words “Bakit dalawa kayong prosecutor, malaki
suiguro bayad sa inyo”, Atty Puti also called the complainant’s counsel “bakla” in open
court; and (3) disrespecting the court by repeatedly claiming that the Judge is bias and
is abusing his discretion. However, Atty. Puti denied all the allegations against him. The
IBP adopted and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, that Atty. Puti is suspended from the practice of law for six
months, for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and several Canons of the CPR.

ISSUE:
WON Atty Puti is guilty in violating the Lawyers Oath and CPR
WON the penalty of suspension from practice of law for six months against Atty. Puti
proper .

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Puti is guilty in violating the Lawyers Oath and several Canons of the CPR.
Although, Atty. Puti was not liable for appearing in the hearings drunk due to lack of
evidence, Atty. Puti is guilty for violating Canon 8 of the CPR for his statements against
the private and public prosecutors.
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.

As regards to Atty. Puti stating in open court that the judge was abusing his discretion
and implied that the judge was partial and biased. Moreover, Atty. Puti threatened the
judge that he would withdraw from the case and walk out if his request was not granted.
Again, such statements were improper and is a violation of Canon 11 of the CPR.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 -A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record
or have no materiality to the case.
With regards to the penalty imposed, the court disagrees with the IPB. While Atty. Puti is
guilty of using inappropriate language against the opposing counsels and the judge,
such transgression is not of a grievous character as to merit his suspension since his
misconduct is considered as simple rather than grave.

FALLO:
WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Artemio Puti GUILTY of violating Canons 8 and 11 and
Rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Court REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

You might also like