Digest For Canons 10-13

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 13

Canon 10

LEONARD W. RICHARDS, Complainant vs. PATRICIO A. ASOY, Respondent A.C. No.


2655, October 11,2010
FACTS:
Respondent Asoy received from Complainant Richards, his client, compensation to handle
his case in the trial court, but the same was dismissed for lack of interest and failure to
prosecute. Asoy abandoned his client in violation of his contract ignoring the most elementary
principles of professional ethics. Furthermore, Asoy ignored the processes of this Court and it was
only after he was suspended from the practice of law of that he surfaced. On July 9, 1987, the
Court resolved to DISBAR him and order him to reimburse Richards the sum of P16,300 within 30
days from notice. On November 11, 1987, the Court received a letter dated November 3,1987,
complained that respondent had not reimbursed him the P16,300. Hence, the Court issued a
resolution requiring Asoy to show cause why he failed to reimburse, however, Asoy still failed to
comply. Complainant filed another letter informing the Court that Asoy still failed to comply with
the order of reimbursement.
Thirteen years after the promulgation, Asoy filed a Petition for readmission to the practice
of law stating, among other things, that on January 2, 1996 or about nine years after his
disbarment and directive to reimbursement complainant made, he effected payment of P16,300
via consignation with the Courts Office of the Cashier. The Court denied the petition for lack of
merit.On August 2, 2010, Asoy filed another petition for Reinstatement to the Bar stating that
he effected payment of P16,300 before the Office of the Cashier of the Supreme Court as
complainant could no longer be found or located; that he had already suffered and agonized
shortcomings; and that as positive evidence of his repentance and rehabilitation he attached
testimonials of credible institutions and personalities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Asoy violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent Asoy violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon
10 states that A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Respondent
denigrated the dignity of his calling by displaying a lack of candor towards this Court. By taking
his sweet time to effect reimbursement and through consignation with this Court at that he sent
out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could be treated with
disdain or impunity. Respondents consignation could not even be deemed compliance with the
Courts directive to reimburse because the Court does not represent the complainant; the latters
address was readily ascertainable had respondent wished to communicate with the complainant
for the purpose of making amends. Hence, respondents petition for reinstatements in the Roll of
Attorneys is DENIED
YOUNG VS BATUEGAS, A.C. No. 5379 May 9, 2003
FACTS:
Young filed a complaint for disbarment against respondents for committing deliberate
falsehood in court & violating the lawyers oath. Young is the private prosecutor in the murder
case, P vs. Arana. Batuegas & Llantino were counsels for accused, Counsels for accused filed a
Manifestation w/Motion for Bail alleging that their client voluntarily surrendered to a person in
authority on Dec 13,2000 but when in fact accused was only in custody on Dec 14, 2000, as
shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty. Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the
Security Management Division of the NBI. Clerk of court, Susa, also a respondent on this case
filed the motion on Dec 15, 2000 despite the irregularities of the case of (lack of notice of
hearing to the private complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and failure to attach
the Certificate of Detention which was referred to in the Motion as Annex).
ISSUE:
WON the counsel is guilty of deliberate falsehood in declaring custody of the accused.
WON the prosecutor must be given a reasonable notice of hearing.
WON the clerk of court would be held liable for wrong entry.
HELD:
YES, To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous
conduct that the court strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they resorted to
deception. Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required
to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at least, he must be asked for his recommendation. In
the case at bar, the prosecution was served with notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days
prior to the scheduled date. Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed

to show any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice rule. Verily, as
lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice. Clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for including the Motion
in the calendar of the trial court, considering that it was authorized by the presiding judge.
However, he is reminded that his administrative functions, although not involving the discretion
or judgment of a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. Thus, he
should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on the part of lawyers
which are contrary to the established rules of procedure. Batuegas, Nazareno and LLantino
suspended for 6 months. Complaint against Susa, dismissed for lack of merit.
Leda vs. Tabang [A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992]
Facts:
Complainant Evangeline Leda and Respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang contracted marriage
performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. The parties agreed
to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law studies and had
taken the Bar examinations, allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. Complainant admits,
though, that they had not lived together as husband and wife. Complainant, thereafter, filed a
Petition for Disbarment against respondent alleging, among others, for having misrepresented
himself as single when in truth he is already married in his application to take the bar exam and
for being not of good moral character contrary to the certification he submitted to the Supreme
Court. Respondent averred that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose the
marriage for the reason that said marriage was void from the beginning in the absence of the
requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code thus he could not have abandoned Complainant because
they had never lived together as husband and wife and that when he applied for the 1981 Bar
examinations, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he was single.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent lacks of good moral character and violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Held:
Yes, Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to
conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics
with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Respondent, through his actuations, has been
lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of
the Court. Hence, respondent is subjected to suspension from the practice of law until further
Orders.

Canon 11
Nestle Philippines vs. Sanchez [GR 75209, 30 September 1987];
Facts:
During the period July 8-10, 1987, Union of Filipro Employees, and Kimberly Independent
Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia, intensified the intermittent pickets
they had been conducting since 17 June 1981 in front of the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme
Court building. They set up pickets' quarters on the pavement in front of the Supreme Court
building, at times obstructing access to and egress from the Court's premises and offices of
justices, officials and employees. They constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set
up a kitchen and littered the place with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper
hygiene and sanitation. They waved their red streamers and placards with slogans, and took
turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers. These acts were done even
after their leaders had been received by Justices Pedro L. Yap and Marcelo B. Fernan as Chairmen
of the Divisions where their cases are pending, and Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of
Filipro Employees, had been called in order that the pickets might be informed that the
demonstration must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and
that the Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as the pickets were maintained.
Thus, on 10 July 1987, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the
opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring Messrs. Tony Avelino, Lito Payabyab, Eugene
San Pedro, Dante Escasura, Emil Sayao and Nelson Centeno, union leaders of Union of Filipro
Employees in the Nestle case and their counsel of record, Atty. Jose C. Espinas; and Messrs.
Ernesto Facundo, Fausto Gapuz, Jr and Antonio Gonzales, union leaders of Kimberly Independent
Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia in the Kimberly case to appear before
the Court on 14 July 1987 at 10:30 a.m. and then and there to show cause why they should not
be held in contempt of court. Atty. Jose C. Espinas was further required to show cause why he
should not be administratively dealt with. On the appointed date and time, the individuals
appeared before the Court, represented by Atty. Jose C. Espinas, in the absence of Atty.
Potenciano Flores, who was still recuperating from an operation. Atty. Espinas, for himself and in
behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court for the acts, together with an
assurance that they will not be repeated. He likewise manifested to the Court that he had
explained to the picketers why their actions were wrong and that the cited persons were willing
to suffer such penalty as may be warranted under the circumstances. He, however, prayed for
the Court's leniency considering that the picket was actually spearheaded by the leaders of the
"Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katagalogan" (PAMANTIK), an unregistered loose alliance
of about 75 unions in the Southern Tagalog area, and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees
or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. To confirm for the record that the person cited for
contempt fully understood the reason for the citation and that they will abide by their promise
that said incident will not be repeated, the Court required the respondents to submit a written
manifestation to this effect, which respondents complied with on 17 July 1987.
Issue:
Whether the respondents should be cited for contempt for their continued picketing at the
Supreme
Courts premises.
Held:
The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free
governments. However, such right, natural and inherent though it may be, has never been
invoked to shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the conduct of courts. For "it is a
traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of
issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be
decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be
uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies." Moreover, "parties have a constitutional right to
have their causes tried fairly in court by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or
public clamor. Every citizen has a profound personal interest in the enforcement of the

fundamental right to have justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of
law free from outside coercion or interference." The acts of the respondents are therefore not
only an affront to the dignity of the Court, but equally a violation of the right of the adverse
parties and the citizenry at large. Still, the individuals cited, who are non-lawyers, are not
knowledgeable in the intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They are not aware that even
as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the Constitution, any attempt to
pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse
thereof, is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any
such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt of court. The duty and
responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court, did his best
to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts and posture. The incident should
therefore serve as a reminder to all members of the legal profession that it is their duty as
officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude
toward courts of justice, and to labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational
program for their members.

Balaoing vs. Calderon


FACTS:
BALAOING vs. JUDGE DOJILLO
i.
Balaoing was required to show why he should not be disciplinarily dealt for
suppressing certain material facts of which he was charged with knowledge and for having
engaged in forum-shopping.
ii.
Balaoings motion for reconsideration was denied, his explanation was declared
unsatisfactory and he was severely censured for having instituted a patently unfounded and
frivolous admin action and warned that the commission of same conduct will be dealt more
severely.
BALAOING vs. JUDGE MALIWANAG
i.
Grave misconduct for failure and regusal to issue corresponding write of action
(pending appeal) prayed for by complainant in his motion in civil case, ZABALA vs. BUENO.
ii.
Balaoings use of unsavory, defamatory and offensive language against Judge
brought dismissal to the complaint, 1-year suspension and P1000 fine for violation of canons
CALDERON AND MALIWANAG.
i.
BALAOING: filed complaint against CALDERON for grave abuse of authority and
malicious delay in administration of justice.
1. CALDERON does not follow the Circular and merely treats it as directory; practice of
Judge to automatically grant postponements and deferment of hearing of cases to a later hour
whenever his OIC makes a manifestation in open court that a certain lawyer or party called up
requesting that his case be postponed.
2. Judge drinks a lot and fraternizes openly.
3. Delayed cases: a.) Allowed defendants to keep postponing hearings more than 1 year.
b.) Cahoots with deputy sheriff, unlawfully prevented implementation of writ of Possession.
4.
Charged both CALDERON AND OIC, MANIAGO with misconduct, grave abuse of
authority and malicious delay in admin of justice.
5. OIC MANIAGO alleges BALAOING calling her notorious, swindler, insane.
ii.
CALDERON: Balaoing won a foreclosure case and became the highest bidder in the
public auction, Certificate of Sale was issued and registered.
1. He prevented the writ of Possession dude to prejudice. a.) Gavilans widow (former
owner), Alice and children were residing in the properties; period to redeem the properties had
not yet expired.
2.
When redemption period elapsed, he issued write of possession but up to present
time, Balaoing has not yet taken possession and showed his disinterest.
iii.
MALIWANAG denied BALAOING allegation, judgment is based on equity and justice
against injustice by a lawyer on the unlearned and poor couple from Baguio.
ISSUE:
WON Balaoings admin complaints hold merit? NO.
Is Balaoing guilty of gross misconduct? YES.
HELD:
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS DISMISSED. BALAOING DISBARRED.

CANON 11: Lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03: Lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before Courts.
Rule 11.04: Lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by record or have
no materiality to the case.
Complaints are based on his personal interpretation of the law and not on material
allegations of fact, substantiated by evidence.

Canon 12
Olivares vs Atty. Villalon Jr.
Facts:
Olivares alleged that Villalons client Al Rasheed repeatedly sued him for violations of the
lease contract which executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Paranaque. In
defense, Villalon contend that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect
and prosecute the interests of his client.
The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. The Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP found that Rasheed in repeatedly suing Olivares for the same
cause of action and subject matter. The case was dismissed in 1999 for lack of interest to
prosecute. Under Rule 17 Sec. 3 ROC, such has the effect on adjudication on merits. CBD
recommended for suspension of Villalon for 6 months with a warning. IBP adopted the findings
however modified the recommended penalty to a mere reprimand.
Issue:
Whether or not Villalon violated Canon 12
Held:
Yes, Canon 12 which provides that: A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause. A lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and
justice. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Courts processes. It constitutes improper
conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice. Those who file multiple or repetitive
actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or willful violation of their
duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions
that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor. Reprimand insufficient. CBD
recommendation six-month suspension is commensurate to violation however in view of
respondents death the disciplinary case is moot and academic
CONRADO QUE vs ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR.
Facts:
In a complaint for disbarment Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla
Jr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Complainant alleged
the respondents commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede,
obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to
defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in
the unlawful detainer case. In his Answer, the respondent declared that he is a member of the
Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handles pro bono cases for the underprivileged,

the less fortunate, the homeless and those marginalized sector in Metro Manila. He agreed to
take over the cases formerly handled by other KDC members. Investigating Commissioner ruled
that the act of the respondent in filing two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for
annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory relief were all done to prevent the
execution of the final judgment in the unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forumshopping.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of forum shopping
Held:
YES. Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. Respondent violated Rule 12.02 and Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule against forum
shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same
objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes they tend to degrade the
administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the congestion of
the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question
the lower courts jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantially erroneous)
move, the respondents subsequent petitions involving the same property and the same parties
not only demonstrate his attempts to secure favorable ruling using different for a, but his obvious
objective as well of preventing the execution of MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer
case against his clients. This intent is most obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment of
judgment and declaratory relief , both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful
detainer decision, long after this decision had become final. Hence, Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. is
found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyers Oath and Canons of
Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred from the practice of law.

Nunez v Ricafort (382 SCRA 381)


Facts:
An administrative complaint was by Soledad Nuez, a septuagenarian represented by her
attorney-in- act Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the disbarment of Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground
of grave misconduct. Sometime in October 1982, Soledad authorized Atty. Ricafort to sell her two
parcels of land located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to the lawyer 10% of the price as
commission. Atty. Ricafort succeeded in selling the lots, but despite Soledads repeated
demands, he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale. This forced Soledad to file an action for a
sum of money before the RTC, Quezon City. The court rendered its decision ordering the Atty. to
pay Soledad the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with at the legal rate from the date of
the commencement of the action. An appeal to the CA was made. However, the appeal was
dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period despite
notice. Soledad filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. But it appears that
only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800 unsatisfied. In
payment for the latter, Atty. issued four postdated checks but was dishonored because the
account against which they were drawn was closed. Hence, Soledad was forced to file four
criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the MTC, Quezon City. In a joint affidavit,
Atty. Ricafort admitted having drawn and issued said four postdated checks in favor of Soledad.
Allegedly believing in good faith that said checks had already been encashed by Soledad, he
subsequently closed his checking account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City, from which
said four checks were drawn. He was not notified that the checks were dishonored. Had he been
notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the bank. The court required
Atty. to comment on the complaint. But he never did despite the favorable action on his three
motions for extension of time to file the comment. His failure to do so compelled Soledad to file a
motion to cite Atty. in contempt on the ground that his strategy to file piecemeal motions for
extension of time to submit the comment smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy
of a member of the bar and a law dean. The IBP findings show that the Atty. had no intention to
honor the money judgment against him. It recommended that Atty. be declared guilty of
misconduct in his dealings with complainant and be suspended from the practice of law for at
least one year and pay the amount of the checks issued to the complainant.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with
complainant.
Held:

YES. There is a blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct.
By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. diminished
public confidence in the law and the lawyers. Instead of promoting such confidence and respect,
he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession. His act of issuing bad
checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of execution for money judgment rendered by the trial
court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make good the checks
despite demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his continued
defiance of judicial processes, which he, as an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to
uphold. To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and judicial processes, he even
had the temerity of making a mockery of the courts generosity to him. We granted his three
motions for extension of time to file his comment on the complaint in this case. Yet, not only did
he fail to file the comment, he as well did not even bother to explain such failure notwithstanding
our resolution declaring him as having waived the filing of the comment. To the SC, Atty. openly
showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful orders.
Atty. Ricafort then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility stating that: Lawyers should avoid any action that would
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes; and that
lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so.
The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Ricafort from the practice of law and directed to pay Soledad
P13,800.

SAA vs. IBP G.R. No. 132826


FACTS:
Atty. Freddie Venida, herein private respondent, filed criminal and administrative cases against
petitioner Saa containing the same facts and allegations violation of Sec 3, RA 3019. Saa filed a
disbarment complaint against Venida in the Supreme Court on Dec 27, 1991 stating that Venidas act
of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted unethical practice. In a Resolution
dated February 17, 1992, Venida was required to comment on the complaint within 10 days. However,
Venida did not comply and just submitted a partial comment January 26, 1993. Supreme Court issued
another Resolution on June 14, 1995 requiring Venida to show costs why he should not be dealt with
or held in contempt for failure to comply with the February 17, 1992 resolution. It was not until
September 4, 1995, almost 3 years late, when Venida filed his full comment which is just a reiteration
of his partial comment. Supreme Court referred the matter to the IBP. In a report dated August 17,
1997 which the IBP Board adopted, Commisioner Briones the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit since it found no evidence of unethical practice and that it was not oppressive. Saa filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE:
Is Atty. Venida guilty of violation the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
Supreme Court upholds the decision of the IBP that there was no grave abuse of discretion in
this case. There was in fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part
of Atty. Venida. Without convincing proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless
legal actions, the findings of the IBP stand. However, the Supreme Court strongly disapproves Atty.
Venidas refusal to comply with the directives of the court. As a lawyer, he has the responsibility to
follow all legal orders and processes. Worse, he filed his complete comment only on June 14, 1995 or
a little over three years after due date. In both instances, he managed to delay the resolution of the
case, a clear violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. But
tried to exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy

workload (for his partial comment). He even had the temerity to blame a strong typhoon for the loss
of all his files, the complaint included (for his full comment). His excuses tax the imagination.
Nevertheless, his apologies notwithstanding, we find his conduct utterly unacceptable for a member
of the legal profession. He must not be allowed to evade accountability for his omissions.
Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr., A.C. No. 8481
FACTS:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier
Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier,
stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the
appealed decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the
Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already
become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the
petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned. However,
despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005
for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus,
on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice
Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on
forum shopping and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that
the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due
process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital
documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:

During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the
senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer.
Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to
represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due
to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the
decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that he
did not violate the lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended that
Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res
judicata. The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client,
but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions
constitutes abuse of the courts processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and
degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state,
the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a
final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not
knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to
the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth
and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer
to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as
a lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."
Canon 13

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT


BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT"
Facts:
On April 28, 2010, the ponencia of Justice Del Castillo in Vinuya, et al. v. Executive
Secretary was promulgated. Subsequently, the counsel for Vinuya et al., or Malaya Lolas, Atty.
Roque and Atty. Bagares, filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, where they posited for
the first time their charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds to reconsider the decision. They
also claimed that evidence bears out the fact not only of extensive plagiarism but also of twisting
the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of the assailed
Judgment for denying the Petition. On that same day, some journalists posted an article, entitled
"SC justice plagiarized parts of ruling on comfort women," on the Newsbreak website. The same
article appeared on the GMA News TV website also.

Thereafter, Atty. Roques column, entitled "Plagiarized and Twisted," appeared in the
Manila Standard Today. In the said column, Atty. Roque claimed one of the authors purportedly
not properly acknowledged in the Vinuya decision confirmed that his work had been plagiarized.
On even date, Justice Del Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the Court in reply to the charge of
plagiarism contained in the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, another
purportedly plagiarized author in the Vinuya decision, Dr. Mark Ellis, wrote the Court expressing
his dismay.
The Court, then, formed the Ethics Committee and referred the letter of Justice Del Castillo
to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee required Attys. Roque and Bagares to comment
on the letter of Justice Del Castillo.
Afterwards, a statement dated entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of
the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" was posted in Newsbreaks website and on Atty.
Roques blog. A report regarding the statement also appeared on various on-line news sites on
the same date. The statement was likewise posted at the University of the Philippines College of
Laws bulletin board and at said colleges website. Dean Leonen of UP submitted a copy of the
Statement to the Court.
During the hearing of the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo, the Ethics Committee
directed Atty. Roque to present the signed copy of the said Statement within three days from said
hearing. Indubitable from the actual signed copy of the Statement was that only 37 of the 81
faculty members appeared to have signed the same.
The Ethics Committee referred the matter to the Court en banc the latter made the
following observations that while the statement was meant to reflect the educators opinion on
the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as
an established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del
Castillos explanation on how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived
at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.
Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the
Court. The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the
land. While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and
democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far.
Many types of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and
irresponsible attacks.
The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the facultys less than
objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and
undermine the Courts honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its
reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort womens claims is not controversial enough, the
UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not
reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of
the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe
fidelity according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice.
Issue:
Should the respondents be reprimanded for their scornful remarks against the esteemed
Court? Thus this constitute a violation of CANON 13?
Held:
YES. The Court ruled that no matter how firm a lawyers 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.
That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya Decision in favor of the Malaya
Lolas was one of the objectives of the Statement. It is also proposed that the choice of language
in the Statement was intended for effective speech; that speech must be "forceful enough to
make the intended recipients listen." One wonders what sort of effect respondents were hoping
for in branding this Court as, among others, callous, dishonest and lacking in concern for the
basic values of decency and respect. The Court fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if

they 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.
As for the claim that the respondents noble intention is to spur the Court to take
"constructive action" on the plagiarism issue, the Court has some doubts as to its veracity. For if
the Statement was primarily meant for this Courts consideration, why was the same published
and reported in the media first before it was submitted to this Court? It is more plausible that the
Statement was prepared for consumption by the general public and designed to capture media
attention as part of the effort to generate interest in the most controversial ground in the
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed in the Vinuya case by Atty. Roque, who is
respondents colleague on the UP Law faculty.
In this regard, 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
Statements issuance, were still both pending final disposition of the Court. These facts have
been widely publicized.
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 into account in the interest of fairness.
Speaking of the publicity this case has generated, the Court finds no merit in the
respondents reliance on various news reports and commentaries in the print media and the
internet as proof that they are being unfairly "singled out." On the contrary, these same annexes
to the Common Compliance show that it is not enough for one to criticize the Court to warrant
the institution of disciplinary or contempt action. The Court takes into account the nature of the
criticism and weighs the possible repercussions of the same on the Judiciary.
When the criticism comes from persons outside the profession who may not have a full
grasp of legal issues or from individuals whose personal or other interests in making the criticism
are obvious, the Court may perhaps tolerate or ignore them. However, when law professors are
the ones who appear to have lost sight of the boundaries of fair commentary and worse, would
justify the same as an exercise of civil liberties, the Court cannot remain silent for such silence
would have a grave implication on legal education in our country.
With respect to the 35 respondents named in the Common Compliance, considering that
this appears to be the first time these respondents have been involved in disciplinary
proceedings of this sort, the Court is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were
for the most part well-intentioned in the issuance of the Statement. However, it is established in
jurisprudence that where the excessive and contumacious language used is plain and
undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating. As the Court expounded where the matter is
abusive or insulting, evidence that the language used was justified by the facts is not admissible
as a defense. Respect for the judicial office should always be observed and enforced.

IN RE: USE BY ATTY. RENERIO G. PAAS AS AN OFFICE IN HIS PRIVATE PRACTICE OF HIS
PROFESSION THE OFFICE OF HIS WIFE, PASAY CITY METC JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS.
Facts:

Judge Estrellita M. Paas charged Court Utility Worker Edgar E. Almarvez with discourtesy,
disrespect, insubordination, neglect in performing his duties, disloyalty, solicitation of monetary
consideration and gross violation of the Civil Service Law.
Judge Paas alleged that Almarvez is:
1.
discourteous to his co-employees, lawyers and party litigants
2.
insubordination- because he and failed to maintain the cleanliness in the court
although he was ordered to do so
3.
Neglect in performing his duty- because he was habitually absent from work and
made it appear that he reported for work by signing the logbook in the morning only to stay out
of the office the whole day
4.
solicitation of monetary consideration- when he asked from detention prisoners
P100.00 to P200.00 before he released to them their Release Orders and even failed to mail
printed matter once and has given confidential information to litigants in advance of its
authorized release date for a monetary consideration, thus giving undue advantage or favor to
the paying party, in violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The clerk of Court and the post man testified on behalf of Atty. Paas as well as the jail
escort and the jail officer. Almarvez denied the allegations and contended that the real reason
why Judge Paas filed the case against him was because she suspected him of helping her
husband, Atty. Renerio G. Paas, conceal his marital indiscretions and since she failed to obtain
any information from him, she called him names and other forms of harassment and even forced
him to prepare a resignation letter. Because of what happened, Almarvez reported the incidents
to Executive Judge Maria Erum who told him to report it too the Office of the Clerk of Court but
he was advised to try to talk the matter over with her who then told him that they should forget
all about it. Almarvez also claimed that the judge ordered him to undergo a drug test even if he
had no history of drug abuse on a periodic or continuous basis.
It was also revealed that Judge Paas' husband, private practitioner Atty. Paas, was using his
wife's office as his office address in his law practice which she denied and contended that the
latter was using Room 203 of the Pasay City Hall of Justice as his office address, they claiming
that Atty. Paas actually holds office at 410 Natividad Building, Escolta, Manila with his partner
Atty. Herenio Martinez; Atty. Paas would visit his wife at her office only when he has a hearing
before the Pasay City courts or Prosecutor's Office, or when he lunches with or fetches her, or
when he is a guest during special occasions such as Christmas party and her birthday which are
celebrated therein; and Judge Paas would never consent nor tolerate the use of the court for any
personal activities.
With regard to the charges against Almarvez, it was recommended by the OCA for the
dismissal of the case and that that he be penalized for inefficiency in the performance of his
official duties with One Month suspension without pay while the charges against Judge Paas, it
was also recommended that the case be dismissed. However it was found that she had used her
administrative power supervision and control over court personnel for her personal pride,
prejudice and pettiness when she ordered Almarvez to undergo a drug test after she had already
filed an administrative case against him. It can be concluded that the purpose of Judge Paas in
ordering Almarvez to undergo a drug test was to fish for evidence to support the administrative
case she had already filed against him.
ISSUE:
WON Atty Paas violated the CPR?
HELD:
Yes. Judge Paas' order for Almarvez to undergo a drug test is not an unlawful order. Public
employees are required to undergo a drug test prior to employment to determine if they are
drug-free. To be drug-free is not merely a pre-employment prerequisite but is a continuing
requirement to ensure the highest degree of productivity of the civil service. However,
considering that the order was issued after Judge Paas filed the administrative case against
Almarvez, it elicits the suspicion that it was only a fishing expedition against him. This is conduct
unbecoming of a member of the judiciary, for which Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded.
With regard to the matter that her husband Atty. Paas was using her office to receive court
notices and orders in a case, it could be interpreted as a subtle way of sending a message that
Atty. Paas is the husband of a judge in the same building and should be given special treatment
by other judges or court personnel.

It was stated under Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct that "A judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." Specifically, Rule 2.03 thereof
provides that:
Rule 2.03. A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence the judge.
By allowing her husband to use the address of her court in pleadings before other courts, Judge
Paas indeed allowed her husband to ride on her prestige for purposes of advancing his private
interest, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
On his part, Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address
that had no purpose other than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are lodged,
or his client, that he has close ties to a member of the juiciary, in violation of the following rules
of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 3 A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL
SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.; Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.; CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.; Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.;
CANON 13 A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
COURT.; CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.; Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer's case, instead of banking on his
relationship with a member of the bench which tends to influence or gives the appearance of
influencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It is unprofessional and dishonorable, to say
the least, to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer's prestige. Public confidence in law and
lawyers may be eroded by such reprehensible and improper conduct.
RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE
PROSECUTOR.
Facts:
This administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings of a criminal case
(People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza) presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Surigao City. The case was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Buyser. Judge Buyser declared
that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution w as sufficient to prove the crime of
homicide and not the charge of murder. Consequently, the counsel for the defense filed a Motion
to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State
Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that
the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject to bail under
the Rules of Court. Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case. The case was
transferred to Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan. Judge Tan favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the
Amount of Bail Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond. Respondent moved to reconsider which
was denied for lack of merit. Respondent appealed. Instead of availing himself only of judicial
remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to
the accused in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article was
entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out."
Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan's decision before the Court of Appeals and would file
criminal and administrative charges of certiorari against the judge. Bagabuyuo said he was not
afraid of being cited in contempt by Judge Tan. He said that this is the only way that the public
would know that there are judges there who are displaying judicial arrogance.
Issue:
Should the respondent be reprimanded or sanctioned by the Court for his contemptuous
remark against the court thus violating CANON 13, Rule 13.02 of the CPR?
Held:
YES. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as
a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Respondent's
statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court,
violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. As a
senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of

observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. 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. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions
which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. The Court is not
against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the
proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must
always be maintained.

You might also like