CANON 10 sent to him by said court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for

the reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding
Director of Lands v. Adorable again a case already decided.
SYLLABUS Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora, claimant
appellant’s attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for
1. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; STANDARDS OF TRUTHFULNESS, FAIR PLAY
reconstitution to make a report to this Court that the records be declared
AND NOBILITY; CASE AT BAR, AN EXAMPLE TO BE REMEMBERED.
reconstituted, together with the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
— In this case the attorney for the claimants and appellees, acting
September 9, 1942, and that said records be remanded to the lower court
under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility
for execution of the decision.
as becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking
advantage of claimant and appellant’s ignorance of what really The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to order
happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on
case had been decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by September 9, 1942, be sent to the lower court for execution. This
the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of the decision resolution is being adopted not without making of record that the action
promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to taken by Attorney Manuel F Zamora should be considered as an example
save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of worthy to be remembered by all members of the bar.
this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case
already decided. This is an example worth remembering by all Facts:
members of the bar.
Adorable files a land claim before the Director of Lands. The case
At the reconstitution of the above-entitled case, claimant-appellant went to the CA for appeal. However, the war broke out. After the war,
presented copies of several papers, exhibits, pleadings, motions and Adorable files a reconstitution case before the SC believing that the case
orders, including copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, was not resolved by the CA. Atty. Zamora, counsel of the appellee of the
record on appeal, and the time the printed brief of said claimant-appellant case informed the Court that the case was already settled by the CA in
who, at the time he filed his motion for reconstitution on February 26, favor of Adorable.
1946, was under the impression that the case, which was pending decision
Issue:
in the Court of Appeals when the war broke out, remained unacted upon
by said court until the motion for reconstitution was filed. WON the conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper.

On June 25, 1946, Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and Held:
appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and
nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking Yes. The conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper.
advantage of claimant-appellant’s ignorance of what really happened in The Court in this case praised Atty. Zamora’s conduct as the
the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decided highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes of the
in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to deserving member of the bar.
said effect the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942,
 Hence, the act of Atty. Zamora is proper. RATIO: The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to
order that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on
FACTS: September 9, 1942, be sent to the lower court for execution. This
At the reconstitution of the above-entitled case, claimant-appellant Miguel resolution is being adopted not without making of record that the
Peñaranda presented copies of several papers, exhibits, pleadings, motions considered as an example worthy to be remembered by all members of
and orders, including copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of the bar. Atty. Zamora showed truthfulness, fair play and nobility as
Iloilo, record on appeal, and the printed brief of Peñaranda who, at the becoming a deserving member of the bar.
time he filed his motion for reconstitution on February 26, 1946, was Carlet v. Court of Appeals
under the impression that the case, which was pending decision in the
Court of Appeals when the war broke out, remained unacted upon by said Facts:
court until the motion for reconstitution was filed.
Carlet who is the Special Administrator of the Estate of
On June 25, 1946, Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and Sevillo through Atty. Jimenez files before the Trial Court an action
appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and for reconvenyance of property of Sevillo. Zarate then moved to
nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking
dismiss such action invoking res judicata since it was the same facts
advantage of Peñaranda's ignorance of what really happened in the Court
that had been settled by the trial court, CA and SC. The action was
of Appeals, informed the court that the case had been decided in favor of
said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the then dismissed by the Trial Court and ordered Atty. Jimenez
copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by regarding forum-shopping. Atty. Jimenez then appealed it before
said court, to save Peñaranda the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution the CA, but to no avail.
of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already
Issue:
decided.

Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora, Peñaranda's WON the action of Atty. Jimenez is proper.
attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for reconstitution to make Held:
a report to this Court that the records be declared reconstituted, together
with the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 9, 1942, and No. The action of Atty. Jimenez is not proper.
that said records be remanded to the lower court for execution of the
decision. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that “A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
ISSUE/S: WON ATTY. Zamora acted in accordance with the Code of court”.
Professional Responsibility.
In the case at bar, the action of Atty Jimenez of filing a
HELD: Yes. ATTY. Zamora acted in accordance with the Code of
reconveyance case despite his knowledge that there is finality of the
Professional Responsibility.
case shows that he does not have good faith towards the court.
 Hence, his conduct is not proper. plaintiff Cirila Baylo Carolasan and the defendants Gregorio
Sevillo, Samero Sevillo, Maltin Sevillo, Andrea Sevillo and
Facts: Isidro Zamora, as the surviving spouse of Consolacion
 In 1917, a Transfer Certificate No. 1599 was issued in Jose Sevillo, are hereby ordered to partition Lot No. 981.
Sevilla’s name after payment of the full purchase price of  The losing party, the Sevillos then filed several cases to
Lot 981 of the Biñan Estate in Laguna, with an area of 864 annul the decision to the IAC and the SC, all of which were
square meters. denied.
 In 1949, Pablo Sevillo, one of Jose’s four sons with a wife  On July 10, 1991, petitioner Iñigo F. Carlet, as special
and four children of his own, declared the lot for taxation administrator of the estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo,
purposes even if the property was still in Jose Sevillo’s filed the case at bar, an action for reconveyance of
name. property, docketed as Civil Case No. B-3582, against the
 In 1955, Pablo, by then a widower, married Candida Baylo heirs of Cirila.
who had a previous daughter already married named Cirila  Defendants Zarate moved to dismiss the case on the ground
Baylo Carolasan. The union produced no offspring. of res judicata. The Defendants won and now Carlet has
 In 1965, Pablo Sevillo, with Candida Baylo, filed a petition appealed to the CA.
before the Court of First Instance for reconstitution of Issues:
title. Reconstitution was allowed and a TCT was issued in
the name of Pablo Sevillo, married to Candida Baylo. Pablo  Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the ground
Sevillo and his wife died in 1967 and in 1974, respectively. of res judicata.

 Before dying, Candida Baylo executed a Deed of Sale in Held/Ratio:

favor of Pablo’s former children in his previous marriage.
 NO. It was already decided in Civil Case No. B-1656. Res
 In 1980, the heirs of Cirila Baylo Carolasan, all surnamed Judicataaaaaa!!!!! There are four requisites to successfully
Zarate and herein private respondents, filed a case invoke res judicata: (a) finality of the former judgment; (b)
for annulment of the said Deed of Sale. The case was the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject
docketed as Civil Case No. B-1656 before the Court of First matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the
Instance of Biñan, Laguna. merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second
actions identity of parties, subject matter and cause of
 The Deed of Sale was rendered as null and void and of no action. A judgment on the merits rendered in the first case
force and effect, and the representative of the estate of the constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action when
 the three identities are present. Even though Civil Case No. petitioner is deemed to have chosen this action over the
B-3582 was initiated by petitioner as administrator of the annulment of the reconstitution proceedings.
 Annulment of the reconstitution proceedings was belatedly
estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo, the fact remains that resorted to only after the CA had reversed the trial court and
he represents the same heirs. upheld the reconstituted title of respondent. Laches bars a
party from invoking lack of jurisdiction for the first time on
 However, the CA ruled that the delay of more than twenty appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done, with his
years since petitioner learned of the reconstituted title was active participation, in the case below. 44

unreasonable, giving rise to the presumption that he had  It cannot be said either that the application of laches would
abandoned the idea of seeking annulment of the work an injustice against petitioner, because he was given a
proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and that he fair chance in the quieting-of-title case to prove his
had opted to take other actions instead. ownership of the disputed lot.
 Petitioner disputes this CA ruling, arguing that (1) on May  Furthermore, by seeking the reexamination of the ownership
26, 1988, he filed Cad. Case No. M-10108 for the of the disputed lot, petitioner accepted the jurisdiction of the
cancellation of OCT No. 665, thus negating the presumption court which heard the action for quieting of title. A litigant
that he had abandoned the annulment of the reconstitution cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
proceedings; (2) he could not file the action for annulment relief and, after failing to obtain such relief, to repudiate or
while the Petition for Cancellation of Title was still pending, question that same jurisdiction. Clearly, laches has
45

because of the rule against forum-shopping; (3)there was no attached and barred the petitioner's right to file an action for
unreasonable delay in the filing of his Petition for Annulment, annulment.
which was filed just eighteen days after his receipt of the CA  To show the cogency of the foregoing disquisition, the
Decision upholding the dismissal of his Petition for interrelation of these rules has recently been synthesized
Cancellation of Title; and (4) the application of the equitable and codified in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
doctrine of laches in this case will perpetrate fraud and provides that an action for annulment of judgment based on
injustice against him. extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its
 We remain unconvinced. Laches is the failure or neglect, for discovery or, if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is
an unreasonable or unexplained length of time, to do that barred by laches
which by exercising due diligence could or should have been
done earlier, warranting the presumption that the right holder
The Insurance Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc.
has abandoned that right or declined to assert it. This
41

inaction or neglect to assert a right converts a valid claim

FACTS:
into a stale demand. 42

 Laches prevents a litigant from raising the issue of lack of The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU,
jurisdiction. True, petitioner filed the annulment Complaint
43

right after the dismissal of the cancellation-of-title case, but it FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU, and
is equally true that it was filed only after the quieting-of-title Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU (hereinafter
case had been decided in favor of the respondent. By referred to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of
participating in the quieting-of-title case and arguing therein Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining
his defenses against the legality of the title of the respondent
in order to establish his rights over the disputed property, agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU
Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as the Companies). Two of membership and degree of participation in the strike. On August 4,
the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon 1958 the Companies filed their answer denying all the material
Garcia; the latter was formerly the secretary-treasurer of the FFW allegations of the complaint, stating special defenses therein, and
and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions and the Insular asking for the dismissal of the complaint. After trial on the merits,
Life Building Employees Association. Garcia, as such acting the Court of Industrial Relations, through Presiding Judge Arsenio
president, in a circular issued in his name and signed by him, tried to Martinez, rendered on August 17, 1965 a decision dismissing the
dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating with the Unions' complaint for lack of merit. On August 31, 1965 the Unions
FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), seasonably filed their motion for reconsideration of the said
to no avail. decision, and their supporting memorandum on September 10,
1965. This was denied by the Court of Industrial Relations en banc in
Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with
a resolution promulgated on October 20, 1965.
the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of Justice. Thereafter,
the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant ISSUE/S: WON there was a violated made in the Canon 10.2 of the
corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department, Code of Professional Responsibility
and he was soon receiving P900 a month, or P600 more than he was
HELD: Yes. There was a violation made. RATIO: Be that as it may, we
receiving from the FFW. Enaje was hired on or about February 19,
must articulate our firm view that in citing this Court's decisions and
1957 as personnel manager of the Companies, and was likewise
rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to
made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the
reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-
collective bargaining with the Unions. On May 20, 1958 the Unions
for-punctuation mark. Indeed, there is a salient and salutary reason
went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at
why they should do this. Only from this Tribunal's decisions and
Plaza Moraga.
rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants, take their
On July 29, 1958 the CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair bearings. This is because the decisions referred to in article 8 of the
labor practice against the Companies under Republic Act 875. The Civil Code which reads, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
complaint specifically charged the Companies with (1) interfering the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of
with the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to the Philippines," are only those enunciated by this Court of last
concerted action, by sending out individual letters to them urging resort.
them to abandon their strike and return to work, with a promise of
We said in no uncertain terms in Miranda, et al. vs. Imperial, et al.
comfortable cots, free coffee and movies, and paid overtime, and,
(77 Phil. 1066) that "[O]nly the decisions of this Honorable Court
subsequently, by warning them that if they did not return to work
establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction." Thus, ever
on or before June 2, 1958, they might be replaced; and (2)
present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the
discriminating against the members of the Unions as regards
decisions and rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct
readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union
meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public them, Sec 43 of RA 1199 merely grants the tenant the right to
who may thereby be misled. But if inferior courts and members of recover one-half of the value of improvements he made on the
the bar meticulously discharge their duty to check and recheck their land, without giving him any right of retention over the land until he
citations of authorities culled not only from this Court's decisions is so reimbursed. As to Section 1 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court
but from other sources and make certain that they are verbatim of Agrarian Relations, they contend that the same had been
reproductions down to the last word and punctuation mark, superseded with the advent of the Agricultural Land Reform Code
appellate courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation, as R.A. 3844
well as be saved precious time in finding out whether the citations
The record bears out that petitioner's counsel alleged in page 5 of
are correct.
the petition for certiorari herein, thus:
Del Rosario v. Chingcuangco
"Section 1, Rule 15, Rules of the Courts of Agrarian Relations,
Facts: predicated on Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended,
supra, has been upheld to be valid by this Honorable Tribunal so
As leasehold tenant, petitioner, Leon del Rosario, occupied a
that now no writ of execution can be issued unless it is complied
parcel of land owned by respondent Tomas Imperio. Said land
with first (Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad). This ruling, in
became the subject matter of litigation before the Court of Agrarian
effect, created and established or confirmed the prior substantial
Relations. A decision was rendered therein, ordering the ejectment
right of a tenant to indemnification before he is finally ejected from
of petitioner from the landholding, and ordering Tomas Imperio to
his holding."
pay del Rosario the value of the excess rentals received by him.
Subsequently, Imperio filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations a Issue:
motion for execution of the aforestated judgment. Del Rosario
WON petitioner’s counsel is guilty of direct contempt by citing
however opposed it, on the ground that he has a right of retention
fictitious authority, violating Canon 22 of Canons of Professional
over the land until he is indemnified for expenses and
Ethics?
improvements. Acting thereon, the Court of Agrarian Relations,
issued an order for the issuance of a writ of execution, stating that Held & Rationale
the judgment had become final and executory, and that Del
Rosario's claim for indemnity cannot stop execution of said No. Petitioner's counsel obviously had in mind this Court's
judgment. Eventually, the corresponding writ of execution was decision in Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad, L-12147, July 30,
issued. Thus, petitioner filed the present special civil action herein. 1957. Although he cites as docket number L-121447 instead of L-
Thereafter, respondent filed a petition to declare petitioner's 12147, the same is plainly but a slight typographical mistake not
counsel in direct contempt, on the alleged ground that in his sufficient to place him in contempt, especially because the names of
petition herein said lawyer cited a fictitious authority. According to the parties were given correctly. As to said counsel's interpretation
of this Court's decision in said case, or of what the ruling therein "in ISSUE/S: 1. WON Santiago‘s language in his pleadings can be
effect" created, established or confirmed, the same are mere equated to contempt. 2. WON Sotto‘s charges against the adverse
arguments fully within the bounds of earnest debate, rather than a litigants cannot be considered in the present case for they are not
deception urged upon this Court. The first petition for contempt is the offended parties in the same.
therefore without merit.
HELD: 1.Yes. The Court finds the language he used that is not
Surigao Mineral Reservation v. Cloribel expected from an officer of the courts. Atty. Santiago is guilty of
contempt of court. 2. No. There shall be no doubt in the power of
FACTS: the Court to punish Atty. Sotto for contempt under the
After a decision adverse to respondent MacArthur International circumstances. Such language is not protected; it surfaces the of
Minerals Co., disrespectful statements purportedly made by its feeling of contempt towards a litigant; it offends the court in which
counsels, Vicente Santiago and Jose Beltran Sotto (both members of it is made. He is guilty of contempt.
the Bar) were brought to this Court with the suggestion of RATIO: (1) Atty. Santiago‘s accusations has no basis in fact and in
disciplinary action. Atty. Sotto, in his statements in his memoranda, law. He did limit his slurs to the Chief Justice and Justice Castro, but
he attacks the petitioners in that case (including the Executive the whole court, pleading all who have received favors from any of
Secretary) of having made wild, false and ridiculous statements in a those connected to the petitioners of that cse to inhibit themselves.
desperate attempt to prejudice the courts against his client. Further There is the not too well concealed effort on the part of a losing
averring that their proposition is corrupt on its face and lays bare litigant‘s attorney to downgrade the court. Counsel‘s words are
the immoral arrogant attitude of the petitioners. Even further intended to create an atmosphere of distrust. A lawyer is an officer
declaring that the petitioners in that case were opportunistically of this court; he is, ―like the court itself, an instrument or agency to
changing their claims and stories from case to case. Atty. Santiago, advance the ends of justice.‖ Atty. Santiago justifies his language
in his third motion for reconsideration, he pictures petitioners as stating that it was necessary for the defense of his client.
―vulturous executives,‖ and goes on to describe the court as
―civilized, democratic tribunal,‖ only to later question the A client‘s cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line
soundness of said decision of the same tribunal. between liberty and license. Discipline and self-restraint on the part
of the bar even under adverse conditions are necessary for the
He filed for a motion to inhibit the Chief Justice and a justice from orderly administration of justice.
judging the case. He depicts the judicial authorities as acting like
messengers of God and that their judgment would seem to be The Court finds in the language of Atty. Santiago a style that
ordained by the Almighty. He questions the ―unjudicial favoritism‖ undermines and degrades the administration of justice. (2) A
for the petitioners of that case by the Court. lawyer‘s language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of
the legal profession. It is Sotto‘s duty as a member of the Bar ―to
abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless the vice president of the opposing party. And Chief Justice Roberto
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged.‖ Concepcion because immediately after the 1968 decision, his son
was appointed to a significant position in the government. (Here
In 1968, the Supreme Court promulgated a unanimous decision (24 Atty. Santiago implied that the justices were not fair and that their
SCRA 491; G.R. No. L-27072) which was not favorable to MacArthur decision was influenced).
International Minerals Co. The latter’s lawyer, Atty. Vicente
Santiago then filed a motion for reconsideration. Eventually, a third In his defense, Atty. Santiago said that he originally deleted the
motion for reconsideration was submitted by him where the above paragraph and was only included due to inadvertence. But
following paragraph was stated: that any rate, he averred that the language he used was necessary
to defend his client.
6. Unfortunately for our people, it seems that many of our judicial
authorities believe that they are the chosen messengers of God in all ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Santiago is guilty of contempt.
matters that come before them, and that no matter what the
HELD: Yes. Lawyers are administrators of justice, oath-bound
circumstances are, their judgment is truly ordained by the Almighty
servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many
unto eternity. Some seem to be constitutionally incapable of
suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this, their clients’
considering that any emanation from their mind or pen could be the
success is wholly subordinate; and their conduct ought to and must
product of unjudicial prejudice or unjudicial sympathy or favoritism
be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. Thus, Santiago’s
for a party or an issue. Witness the recent absurdity of Judge
defense is not tenable.
Alikpala daring to proceed to judge a motion to hold himself in
contempt of court — seemingly totally oblivious or A lawyer must avoid language that tend to create an atmosphere of
uncomprehending of the violation of moral principle involved — and distrust, of disbelief in the judicial system. A lawyer’s duties to the
also of Judge Geraldez who refuses to inhibit himself in judging a Court have become common place. Really, there could hardly be
criminal case against an accused who is also his correspondent in any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof.
two other cases. What is the explanation for such mentality? Is it
Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms,
outright dishonesty? Lack of intelligence? Serious deficiency in moral
spells out one such duty: ‘To observe and maintain the respect due
comprehension? Or is it that many of our government officials are
to the courts of justice and judicial officers.’
just amoral?
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a
Scattered in his motion were other statements where he attacked
respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of
the 1968 decision of the Supreme Court as false, erroneous, and
the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme
illegal.
importance.
In another motion, Atty. Santiago sought the inhibition of two
Atty. Santiago was fined for his infractions.
Justices: Justice Fred Castro, because allegedly, he is the brother of
Munoz v. CA and Delia Sutton the Supreme Court. (Cesica v. Villaseca, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30,
1957)
Topic:
Rule 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquotes or 4. SC set a hearing requiring all lawyers-partners in the firm to be
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument present. Sutton appeared. While her demeanor was respectful, it
of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or was obvious that she was far from contrite.
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
5. Sutton was subjected to intensive questioning by several
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
members of the Court, yet she was not budged from such an
proved.
untenable position. It was as if she was unconcerned, oblivious of
Facts: the unfavorable reaction to which her evasive answers gave rise.
1. Delia Sutton, a member of the Philippine bar, was the defense
6. Atty Sedfrey Ordoñez (law firm partner) expressly acknowledged
lawyer in the case Vicente Muñoz vs PP and CA. She was also
that what happened in the petition for certiorari prepared by Sutton
connected to Salonga, Ordoñez, Yap, Parlade, and Associates law
did misrepresent what is set forth in the CA decision and was
firm.
reprehensible. He was humble enough to make the necessary
2. Supreme Court found out that the defense submitted an expression of regret.
unbelievable version of the case, attributing to the CA that its
7. Delia Sutton and Atty. Ordoñez filed a ”Joint Apology to the
decision was made upon facts different from what actually
Supreme Court,” seeking to make amends.
transpired.
Issue:
Defense Theory: Muñoz’s boat was rammed out by the
Whether or not Sutton must be held accountable in connect to a
complainant.
duty she owes to the Tribunal as a counsel.
Truth: Muñoz’s boat hit the left frontal outrigger of the
complainant’s boat where the complainant was seated, thereby Decision: YES, she must be held accountable.
hitting him on the back and causing his death. 1. While expressing regret and offering apology, there was lacking
that frank admission that what was done by her should not be
Muñoz’s motorboat had suffered very little damage which would
characterized merely as "errors" consisting as they do of "inaccurate
have been considerable had it been rammed by the offended
statements." If there were a greater sincerity on her part, the
party’s boat.
offense should have been acknowledged as the submission of
3. The Court resolved to deny the petition upon the ground that it is deliberate misstatements.
mainly factual and for lack of merit. Where the findings of fact of
2. As set forth in the applicable Canon of Legal Ethics: "Nothing
the Court of Appeals [are conflicting], the same [are not binding] on
operates more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice
against lawyers as a class, and to deprive the profession of that full particular paragraph. He reasoned that it was his secretary who
measure of public esteem and confidence which belongs to the was at fault.
proper discharge of its duties than does the false claim, often set up
3. His secretary attached an Affidavit supporting the explanation
by the unscrupulous in defense of questionable transactions, that it
made by Dacanay and admitted that it was her who committed
is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him to succeed
the error.
in winning his client's cause." What is more, the obligation to the
bench, especially to this Court, for candor and honesty takes ISSUE:
precedence. It is by virtue of such considerations that punishment
that must fit the offense has to be meted out to respondent Delia T. WON Atty. Dacanay should be disbarred for intercalating a material
Sutton. fact in a judicial decision.

3. WHEREFORE, respondent Delia T. Sutton is severely censured. HELD:

Adez Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals YES. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck
the allegations in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted
FACTS: portions, and ensure that the statements therein are accurate and
the reproductions faithful, down to the last word and even
1. In a SC resolution, it directed Atty. Benjamin Dacanay counsel
punctuation mark. The legal profession demands that lawyers
for petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., to "SHOW CAUSE within 5 days
thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and other documents
from notice why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for
dictated or prepared by them, typed or transcribed by their
intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court a quo
secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the court. If a client is
thereby altering and modifying its factual findings with the
bound by the acts of his counsel, with more reason should counsel
apparent purpose of misleading the SC in order to obtain a
be bound by the acts of his secretary who merely follows his orders.
favorable judgment, and thus failing to live up to the standards
expected of a member of the Bar. The distortion of facts committed by counsel, with the willing
assistance of his secretary, is a grave offense and should not be
2. In his defense, he humbly submitted to the court and threw
treated lightly, not only because it may set a dangerous precedent
himself at its mercy. He explained that whenever he prepares
but, rather, because it is a clear and serious violation of one’s oath
pleadings, he dictates to his secretary and if portions of the
as a member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the
decision or order to be appealed from have to be quoted, he
Code of Professional Responsibility directs that “[a] lawyer shall not
simply instructs his said secretary to copy the particular pages
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
of the said decision or order. In the case at bar, he did instruct
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a
his secretary to copy the corresponding pages in the decision of
decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already
the CA. Somehow, however, some words were intercalated on a
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact There is no dispute as to the antecedents. On January 14, 1965, the Court of First
that which has not been proved.” Instance of Bulacan, Branch II through its clerk issued a writ of execution reciting
that as far back as March 31, 1958, it rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs,1 now
Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision appellees, requiring one of the defendants therein, Segundo Aguinaldo, to
reconvey one-fourth (¼) pro-indiviso of the property in litigation to appellees, and
constitutes willful disregard of the lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all
to pay the latter the amount of P300.00 yearly beginning with the year 1955. There
times in a manner consistent with the truth. A lawyer should never was an appeal. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on May 23, 1965.
venture to mislead the court by false statements or quotations of It was further set forth therein that on January 5, 1965, a motion for its execution
facts or laws. Thus, in Bautista v. Gonzales, We suspended was granted. Hence the writ of execution. On February 13 of the same year, one
Cecilio Aguinaldo filed an urgent ex parte manifestation and motion to quash such
respondent for six (6) months for, among others, submitting to the
writ of execution based primarily on the allegation that defendant Segundo
lower court falsified documents, representing them to be true Aguinaldo died on August 7, 1959 during the pendency of such appeal. There was
copies. In Chavez v. Viola, We suspended respondent counsel for an opposition to such motion on February 25, 1965, inviting attention to Sec. 16,
five (5) months after he filed an Amended Application for Original Rule 3 of the Rules of Court to the effect that in the event of the death of a party to
Registration of Title which contained false statements. a pending case, it is the duty of his attorney to give the name and residence of his
executor, administrator, guardian, or their legal representative and alleging that
WHEREFORE, We find ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for there was a failure on the part of the counsel to comply with the above provision.
The prayer was for the denial of the motion of Cecilio Aguinaldo and for an order
petitioner, guilty of intercalating a material fact in a judicial Decision
requiring counsel for the defendants to furnish the court the names as well as the
elevated to Us on certiorari, thereby altering its factual findings with residences of the heirs or the legal representatives of the deceased in order that
the apparent purpose, and no other, of misleading the Court in they could be substituted in his stead so as not to render nugatory a decision, final
order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably failing to and executory in character. On March 4, 1965, the lower court, then presided by
live up to the standards expected of him as a member of the the Hon. Ricardo C. Puno gave counsel of record up to March 22, 1965 within which
to submit the name and residence of the executor, administrator, guardian or
Philippine Bar. Consequently, ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY is
other legal representative of the deceased Segundo Aguinaldo. The aforesaid
hereby DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice of law. counsel in turn merely manifested on March 23, 1965 that he had ceased to be
such as of May 31, 1956, and that such a pleading be considered sufficient
Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo compliance with the aforesaid order. Considering the turn of events, plaintiffs, in
Any effort on the litigant to delay, if not to defeat, the enforcement of a final order that such a decision in their favor be not rendered nugatory by the above
judgment, executory in character, by raising an objection that at best hardly rises technicality, had no choice but to ask the court in a motion of April 7, 1965 to have
to the level of a technicality is not likely to elicit the sympathy of this Court or any the heirs of the deceased Segundo Aguinaldo, defendants Cecilio, Anastasia,
court for that matter. Yet, in effect, that is what the move taken by the defendants Simplicio and Domingo, all bearing the surname of Aguinaldo being the legitimate
in his case amounted to. The lower court as was but proper did not lend its children, and one Felicitas Bagawisan, a granddaughter, substituted as defendants.
approval. Still undeterred, they would appeal. They ought to have known better. On October 5, 1965, the lower court, this time presided by Judge Andres Sta.
There is no reason to refuse affirmance to the order of the lower court complained Maria, granted the aforesaid motion and substituted defendants in place of the
of, appointing appellants as legal representatives of the deceased defendant and deceased Segundo Aguinaldo.
substituted in his place pursuant to the Rules of Court in order that the execution
that ought that have taken place long since could at long last be effected.
Hence this appeal to the Court of Appeals, which in turn by resolution of February doubt as to our disapproval of such a practice. The aim of a lawsuit is to render
17, 1969 certified the matter to this Court, the question involved being one of law. justice to the parties according to law. Procedural rules are precisely designed to
As noted at the outset, we find for appellees. accomplish such a worthy objective. Necessarily, therefore, any attempt to pervert
the ends for which they are intended deserves condemnation. We have done so
1. It would be the height of unreason to impute error to the lower court precisely before. We do so again.
for embodying in the order complained of what is set forth in the Rules of Court.
Thus: "Whenever a party to a pending case dies, becomes incapacitated or WHEREFORE, the order of October 5, 1965 is affirmed.
incompetent, it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of
such death, incapacity or incompetency, and to give the name and residence of his This decision is immediately executory. Treble costs against defendants.
executor, administrator, guardian or other legal representative."2Had the
Canlas v. Court of Appeals
defendant, thereafter deceased, seen to it that a new counsel was appointed, then
upon his death there could be compliance with the above provision. To cause
FACTS:
plaintiffs to suffer for such neglect of duty is to cast an underserved reflection on
the law. It is equally vital to remember that the judgment had become final and the Francisco Herrera executed a mortgage over his 8 parcels of land in
stage of execution reached. Defendants cannot be heard to allege that it is much
favor of L&R Corporation as a security for the several loans which he
too late now to apply the above rule. That would be to set at naught the principle
consistently adhered to by this Court. obtained from the financing institution. Upon his failure to pay, L&R
extrajudicially foreclosed the said lots. The lands were disposed of
It was succinctly put in Amor v. Jugo3 in these words: "And with more compelling
in a public auction and L&R was the highest bidder.
reason the respondent court cannot refuse to issue such writ, or quash it or order
its stay, when the judgment had been reviewed and affirmed by an appellate court,
Pending redemption, with Atty. Canlas as his counsel, Herrera was
for it cannot review or interfere with any matter decided on appeal, or give other
or further relief, or assume supervisory jurisdiction to interpret or reverse the able to obtain a preliminary injunction against L&R to prevent it
judgment of the higher court."4 What was said by us in Li Kim Tho v. Sanchez5 is from consolidating the title in the corporation’s name.
worth recalling: "Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and
it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a Two years later, the parties entered into a compromise agreement
judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, where L&R gave Herrera another year to redeem the foreclosed
deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any properties subject to payment of P600,000. They also stipulated
scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end
that Canlas shall be entitled to attorney’s fees of 100k. The court
to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them."6 An
excerpt from Villaflor v. Reyes7 is equally relevant: "There should be a greater approved the compromise.
awareness on the part of litigants that the time of the judiciary, much more so of
However, Herrera, due to his financial difficulties, was still unable to
this Court, is too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts, far from
commendable, to evade the operation of a decision final and executory, especially pay neither the several loans nor the attorney’s fees which he owed
so, where, as shown in this case, the clear and manifest absence of any right calling to Canlas. Canlas moved for execution insofar as his fees were
for vindication, is quite obvious and indisputable."8 concerned which the court granted although he was not really able
2. This appeal, moreover, should fail, predicated as it is on an insubstantial to collect the fees.
objection bereft of any persuasive force. Defendants had to display ingenuity to
conjure a technicality. From Alonso v. Villamor,9 a 1910 decision, we have left no
Subsequently, Canlas and Herrera met to discuss the relief for Judgments can only be annulled if there was a showing that there is
Herrera with respect to his liability to L&R on the one hand, and his extrinsic fraud. In the case at bar, extrinsic fraud was not proved.
obligation to Canlas on the other. Canlas contends that Herrera (Herrera contends that The judge in the trial court colluded with
earnestly begged him to redeem the properties. However, Herrera Canlas in order for him to sell his land to Canlas.)
maintains that it was Canlas who offered to advance the money
However, the Court was still unable to find merit in his petition/ The
provided that they executed a transfer of mortgage over the
court cannot overlook the unseemlier side of the proceeding in
properties in Canlas’ favor. (SC believes Herrera’s contention more)
which a member of the bar would exploit his mastery of procedural
They executed a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption law to score a technical knowckout over his client, of all people.
and/or to Redeem, a document that enabled Canlas to redeem the
No.
parcels of land and to register the same in his name. Herrera only
discovered that the said lawyer registered the lots under his name Even Canlas himself admitted that his client lacks paying capacity
when he was about to secure a loan from a bank to finance a wet and no financing entity wanted to extend him a loan. This
market project. Herrera contends that the said document was circumstance should have tempered his demand for his fees.
falsified. The original document only transferred the rights of
Herrera to redeem the property whereas the falsified document Lawyering is not a money-making venture and lawyers are not
stated that he was transferring all of his rights of the real properties. merchants. Canlas’ claim of attorney’s fees in the sum of P100,000
was unreasonable. The extent of the services he rendered in the
Herrera filed for an action for reconveyance of the said lots and a case is not impressive to justify payment of such amount. The case
petition to reform the said document to reflect the true agreement itself did not involve complex question fact or law that would have
between him and Canlas. required substantial effort as to research or leg work for the Canalas
to support his demand. The fatc that the properties subject thereof
TC ruled in favor of Canlas. CA reversed.
commanded quite handsome prices in the market should not be a
ISSUE: measure of the importance or non-importance of the case. The
petitioner’s stature does not support such claim. The Court reduced
W/n Herrera should have filed a petition for certiorari rather than a
the petitioner’s fees on a quantum merit basis, to P20,000.00
pleading for annulment of judgment
***the contract is not void for it is not covered by the ban
W/n the attorney’s fees that Canlas charged Herrera was
(remember sales?) but it is voidable because Canlas exerted undue
reasonable
influence over Herrera (moral ascendancy of the attorney.)
HELD:
***however, the property was already in the possession of an IPFV
Yes. so Canlas was only held liable for actual damages. BUT…Herrera
should still pay for the redemption price that Canlas paid plus the Court of appeals which ruled over the same.
attorney’s fees so this will be set-off against the damages that
Canlas has to pay. Issue: whether the petitioner is on solid ground on the reacquisition
over the said properties.
Facts:
Ruling:
The private respondent own several parcels of land located in By Atty. Canlas' own account, "due to lack of paying capacity of
Quezon City for which he is the registered owner. He secured loans respondent Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him
from L and R corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the any loan with which to pay the redemption price of his mortgaged
parcels of land for the security of the same. Upon the maturity of properties and petitioner's P100,000.00 attorney's fees awarded in
said loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the the Compromise Judgment," a development that should have
properties in question after private respondent failed to pay until tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed
maturity. The private respondent filed a complaint for injunction his interests over and above those of his client, in opposition to his
over the said foreclosure and for redemption of the parcels of land. oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer ... with all good fidelity ... to
Two years after the filing of the petition, private respondent and L [his] clients." The Court finds the occasion fit to stress that
and R corporation entered into a compromise agreement that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not
renders the former to be insured another year for the said merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial
properties. Included in the stipulations were the attorney’s fees notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts
amounting to Php 100,000.00. The private respondent however, partaking of a shakedown" of his own client are not becoming of a
remained to be in turmoil when it came to finances and was lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to
apparently unable to pay and secure the attorney’s fees, more so "delay no man for money."
the redemption liability. Relief was discussed by petitioner and We are not, however, condoning the private respondent's own
private respondent executed a document to redeem the parcels of shortcomings. In condemning Atty. Canlas monetarily, we cannot
land and to register the same to his name. overlook the fact that the private respondent has not settled his
liability for payment of the properties. To hold Atty. Canlas alone
Allegations were made by the private respondent claiming the liable for damages is to enrich said respondent at the expense of his
parcels of land to his name but without prior notice, the properties lawyer. The parties must then set off their obligations against the
were already registered under the petitioner’s name. The private other.
respondent calls for a review and for the court to act on the said
adverse claim by petitioner on said certificates for the properties Eternal Gardens v. Court of Appeals
consolidated by the redemption price he paid for said properties.
Facts: The case started on May 18, 1981 when private respondent-
The private respondent filed a suit for the annulment of judgment in
spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin filed a complaint against
Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation (Central Dyeing for brevity) successor-in-interest of defendant Central Dyeing pursuant to Rule
for quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer 39, Section 48(b) of the Revised Rules of Court.
Certificate of Title issued in the name of said corporation, before
Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari.
the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City.
On September 30, 1992 the Court of Appeals rendered judgment
On August 24, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment, the dismissing the petition.
dispositive portion of which reads:
Indeed, since petitioner admits that it bought the property from
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Central Dyeing and Finishing Corporation, petitioner is bound by the
decision rendered therein by respondent Judge.
Declaring the defendant's Certificate of Title No. 205942 null and
void. Under Section 20, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court, a transferee
pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in
Dismissing counterclaim of defendant without pronouncement as to
order to be bound by the judgment because the action or suit may
costs."
be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and
The aforesaid decision was affirmed by respondent Court of Appeals still be binding on the transferee.
and eventually upheld by this Court.
The motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of
The RTC decision, having become final and executory, private Appeals.
respondents moved for execution which was granted by the lower
On further appeal to this Court, petitioners petition for review on
court. Accordingly, a writ of execution of the decision was issued.
certiorari, was denied.
Subsequently, private respondents filed an Urgent Manifestation
Thereafter, private respondents filed another motion for the
and Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession/Break Open Order.
issuance of a second writ of execution before the trial court which
The motion was opposed by herein petitioner Eternal Gardens
was granted.
Memorial Park Corporation contending that it is not submitting to
the jurisdiction of the trial court; that it is completely unaware of Not willing to give up, petitioner sought a reconsideration.
the suit between private respondents and Central Dyeing; that it is Petitioners motion was initially granted by the trial court thru Judge
the true and registered owner of the lot having bought the same Arturo Romero. However, upon motion of private respondents, the
from Central Dyeing; and that it was a buyer in good faith. said order was reconsidered by Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., who
succeeded Judge Romero. Forthwith, alias writs of execution were
On July 1, 1992, the trial court granted private respondents motion.
issued.
Another Order was issued on August 18, 1992 by the trial court
holding that the judgment was binding on petitioner, being the
Desperately needing a favorable judgment, Petitioner, for the A note of caution. This case has again delayed the execution of a
second time, filed a petition for certiorari with respondent Court of final judgment for seventeen (17) years to the prejudice of the
Appeals, arguing inter alia: that the judgment cannot be executed private respondents. In the meantime that petitioner has thwarted
against it because it was not a party to Civil Case; that the decision execution, interment on the disputed lot has long been going on, so
of the trial court in said case never mandated Central Dyeing to that by the time this case is finally terminated, the whole lot shall
deliver possession of the property to the private respondents; that have already been filled with tombstones, leaving nothing for
certain facts and circumstances which occurred after the finality of private respondents, the real owners of the property. This is a
the judgment will render the execution highly unjust, illegal and mockery of justice.
inequitable; that the issuance of the assailed writ of execution
We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of
violates the lot buyers freedom of religion and worship; and that
their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they
private respondents title is being questioned in another case.
should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert
On September 29, 1995, the respondent court rendered judgment every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the lower justice. They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to
court's decision in Civil Case had long become final and executory. defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
Held: The petition must fail.
As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the
It is a settled rule that once a court renders a final judgment, all the
proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by
issues between or among the parties before it are deemed resolved
filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the
and its judicial functions with respect to any matter related to the
judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A
controversy litigated come to an end.
judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a
Petitioners argument that the trial court cannot order it and the one case such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely
hundred (100) memorial lot owners to surrender and/or deliver clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance
possession of the property in dispute on the ground that they were the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for
never parties to the case between private respondents and Central sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.
Dyeing, has long been resolved by respondent Court of Appeals.

Under Section 20, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court, a transferee

pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in
order to be bound by the judgment because the action or suit may
be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and
still be binding on the transferee.
CANON 11 this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has
taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the
In Re:Sotto
administration of justice. An attorney as an officer of the court is
Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to reason why he should not be under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and
punished for contempt in connection with his written statement of communication to the courts; he may be removed from office or
the Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Angel Parazo's case, stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant
which was published in Manila Times and in other newspapers in misconduct. Atty. Sotto is fined PHP 1,000 with subsidiary
the locality. imprisonment in case of insolvency and he is also required to show
cause why he should not be disbarred.
Sotto was given ten days besides the five days originally given to
him to file his answer, and although his answer was filed after the In Re: Almacen
expiration of the period of time given him the said answer was
FACTS:
admitted. He does not deny the authenticity of the statement as it
has been published. He nevertheless, asserts that under Sec 13, Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil
Article VIII of the Constitution, which confers upon the Supreme case. The trial court, after due hearing, rendered judgment against
Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, his client, but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He
and procedure, the Supreme Court has no power to impose notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate
correctional penalties upon the citizens, and it can only impose fines the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was
and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be promulgated by denied. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his
Congress with the approval of the Chief Executive. He also alleges in appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for
his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari
guaranteed by the Constitution, Sotto made his statement in the before the Supreme Court which also denied his appeal in a minute
press with the utmost good faith and with no intention of offending resolution. Almacen called such minute resolutions as
any of the majority of the members of this high Tribunal, who he unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition
thinks, erroneously decided Parazo‘s case; but he has not attacked, to surrender his lawyer‘s certificate of title as he claimed that it is
or intended to attack the honesty or integrity of any one. useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the
high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who
ISSUE/S: WON Sotto is guilty for contempt of court hence punished
ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit
HELD: Yes, Sotto is found guilty for knowingly publishing false culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.
imputations against the members of the court.
He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was
RATIO: As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. made to pay P120, 000 without knowing the reasons why and that
Vicente Sotto is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of he became ―one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of
hypocrisy.‖ He also stated ―that justice as administered by the proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal information
present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where
deaf and dumb.‖ The Supreme Court did not immediately act on he stated that the ―rich and influential persons get favorable
Almacen‘s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary
actually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his litigant to get his petition to be given due course.‖ Zaldivar then
lawyer‘s certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court
Almacen then asked that he may be permitted ―to give reasons then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. After hearing his side, the
and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . . Supreme Court held that Gonzalez is guilty of contempt of court.
. in an open and public hearing.‖ He said he preferred this Gonzalez‘ counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising the
considering that the Supreme Court is ―the complainant, following issues:
prosecutor and Judge.‖ Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE/S:
ISSUE/S: WON Almacen should be disciplined.
1. WON the Supreme Court erred in charging Gonzalez with indirect
HELD: Yes. He was suspended indefinitely. contempt and convicting him of direct contempt

RATIO: The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are 2. WON the Supreme Court erred to charge Gonzalez under Rule
needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or 139 (b) and not 139 of the Revised Rules of Court
write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High
3. WON the Supreme Court erred in applying the visible tendency
Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional
rule rather than the clear and present danger rule in disciplinary and
duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide ―only
contempt charges
those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have
immediate importance beyond the particular 4. WON the Supreme Court erred in holding that intent is irrelevant
in charges of misconduct
Zaldivar v. Gonzales
5. WON the Supreme Court erred in punishing Gonzalez for
FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged
contempt for out of court publications
before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzalez was the then Tanodbayan who was 6. WON the imposition of indefinite suspension against Gonzalez
investigating the case. Zaldivar filed before the Supreme Court a constitutes cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.
petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the
authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases. The HELD (In its entirety, Motion for Reconsideration was denied)
Supreme Court rendered decision in favor of Zaldivar and ordered 1. No. The SC held that Gonzalez is guilty of both ―contempt of
Gonzalez to cease and desist from investigating. Gonzales however court in facie curiae and gross misconduct as an officer of the court
and member of the bar.‖ The word ―in facie curiae‖ is not and statements by simply pleading a secret intent or state of mind
equivalent of direct contempt. Rather, the court used the term to incompatible with his acts or statements.
signify a ―frontal assault‖ upon the integrity of the Court and the
5. No. Respondent‘s counsel asked the SC to follow what he
entire judicial system. The SC also noted that it did not impose
presented as alleged modern trends in UK and US concerning the
punishment for Gonzalez‘ acts under direct contempt.
law of contempt. The SC held that the text he cites is not applicable
2. No. Rules 139 talks about the referral of SC to IBP or OSG while in Philippine courts.
Rule 139(b) states that reference to IBP and/or OSG is not
6. No. Indefinite suspension has the effect of placing the key to the
mandatory. The SC did not err in not referring the case to IBP or
restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands.
OSG. The SC held that there is no need to refer the case to the OSG
The sanction has the effect of giving Gonzalez the chance to purge
because the Court itself has initiated the case against Gonzalez. In
himself in his own good time.
addition to this, the SC said that there is no need for further
investigation of facts in the present case because it was not Wicker v. Arcangel
disputed by Gonzalez that he uttered or wrote certain statements
attributed to him. Facts: Kelly Wicker brought suit in the Regional Trial Court of Makati
against the LFS Enterprises, Inc. and others, for the annulment of
3. No. The SC explained that the ―visible tendency rule‖ penalizes certain deeds by which a house and lot at Forbes Park, which the
any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, plaintiffs claimed they had purchased, was allegedly fraudulently
obstruct or degrade the administration of justice while the ―clear titled in the name of the defendant LFS Enterprises and later sold by
and present danger rule‖ is a method of marking out the the latter to codefendant Jose Poe. Thereafter, Wicker’s counsel,
appropriate limits of freedom of speech and of assembly in certain Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the inhibition of
contexts. The SC held that the clear and present danger test is not respondent judge from the consideration of the case. They alleged
the only test which is recognized and is applicable to courts. Also, that Judge Capulong who had full grasp of this case was eased out
invoking this test would not dissolve the problem because the of his station and that the Acting Presiding Judge Arcangel was
statements made by Gonzalez are of such nature as to transcend personally recruited by Atty. Benjamin Santos and/or his wife, Atty.
the permissible limits of free speech. Hence, visible tendency rule Ofelia Calcetas-Santos. In one hearing, the Acting Presiding Judge
and not clear and present danger shall be applied. had not yet reported to his station and in that set hearing, counsel
for defendant LFS Enterprises, Inc. who must have known that His
4. No. The SC explained that human intent can only be shown by
Honor was not reporting did not likewise appear while other
examining one‘s acts and statements. Gonzalez‘ disclaimer of intent
counsels were present. This resulted to doubts on the partiality and
to attack the Court cannot prevail over the plain import of what he
integrity of the Presiding Judge and complainants assert that he
did say and do. Gonzalez cannot negate the clear import of his acts
should immediately move for his inhibition. Considering the
allegations to be malicious, derogatory and contemptuous,
respondent judge ordered both counsel and client to appear However, the Court believes that consistent with the rule that the
before him. Atty. Rayos claimed that the allegations in the motion power to cite for contempt must be exercised for preservative
did not necessarily express his views because he merely signed the rather than vindictive principle and the jail sentence on petitioners
motion in a representative capacity, in other words, just lawyering, may be dispensed with while vindicating the dignity of the court.
for Kelly Wicker, who said in a note to him that a young man Therefore, the ruling against petitioners is modified by DELETING
possibly employed by the Court had advised him to have the case the sentence of imprisonment for five (5) days and INCREASING the
reraffled. Finding petitioners explanation unsatisfactory, respondent fine from P 100.00 to P200.00 for each of the petitioners.
judge held them guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to
Montecillo v. Gica
suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of P100.00.
Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty.
Issues: Whether or not petitioner and his counsel should be held
Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo and he successfully
guilty of contempt
defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to
Held: Yes. The allegations are derogatory to the integrity and honor win their counterclaim thus the lower court ordered Gica to pay
of respondent judge and constitute an unwarranted criticism of the Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.
administration of justice in this country. They suggest that lawyers,
Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where
if they are well connected, can manipulate the assignment of judges
the latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar then filed a
to their advantage. The truth is that the assignments of Judges
motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against
Arcangel and Capulong were made by this Court, by virtue of
the Court of Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA
Administrative Order No. 154-93, precisely in the interest of an
justices “knowingly rendered an unjust decision” and “judgment
efficient administration of justice and pursuant to Sec. 5 (3), Art. VIII
has been rendered through negligence” and that the CA allowed
of the Constitution. Atty. Rayos’ claims that he merely did what he
itself to be deceived.
had been bidden to do by his client of whom he was merely a
mouthpiece is untenable. Based on Canon 11 of the Code of The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much responsibility using such tone with the court. Del Mar then filed a second MFR
for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to
client. His duty to the courts is not secondary to that of his show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt.
client. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins him to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter
officers and to insist on similar conduct by others and not to which he sent to the President of the Philippines asking the said
attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its
materiality to the case. judgment. Del Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices
of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil case was
eventually dismissed by reason of a compromise agreement where not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his
del Mar agreed to pay damages to the justices. Eventually, the CA client.
suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.
Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.
The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to
Sangalang v. IAC
reverse his suspension as well as the CA decision as to the
Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of del Lawyer’s Act:
Mar as he demanded from the Clerk of the Supreme Court as to
who were the judges who voted against him. Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and
Lutgarda Sangalang, allegedly used intemperate and accusatory
The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation language in his motion for reconsideration. The Court finds Atty.
as to why he should not be disciplined. Del Mar in his explanation Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration, particularly, “. . .
instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not been The Court not only put to serious question its own integrity
“convinced that human efforts in [pursuing the case] will be and competence but also jeopardized its own campaign against
fruitless” he would have continued with the civil case against the CA graft and corruption undeniably pervading the judiciary . . .”
justices. In his explanation, del Mar also intimated that even the disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for.
Supreme Court is part among “the corrupt, the grafters and those
allegedly committing injustice”. Court’s Ruling:

Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices His suggestions that the Court might have been guilty of graft and
but the judge who handled the case dismissed the same. corruption in acting on these cases are not only unbecoming, but
comes, as well, as an open assault upon the Court’s honor and
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended. integrity.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation Atty. Sangco is entitled to his opinion, but not to a license to insult
of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn the Court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta
and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the ad hominem. In that event, it is the Court’s duty "to act to preserve
high esteem and regard towards the court so essential to the the honor and dignity .. and to safeguard the morals and ethics of
proper administration of justice. the legal profession."
It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest We sought to hold Atty. Sangco in contempt, specifically, for resort
Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged error in to insulting language amounting to disrespect toward the Court
deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both within the meaning of Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court.
Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment.
In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if
Clearly, however, his act also constitutes malpractice as the term is he said. RATIO: Counsel should conduct himself towards the judges
defined by Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. who try his cases with that courtesy all have a right to expect. As an
officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and
Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is (1) SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the
three (3) months effective from receipt hereof, and (2) ORDERED to
courts so essential to the proper administration of justice.Atty.
pay a fine of P 500.00
Sebastian failed to observe this. The expressions contained in the
Paragas v. Cruz written motion of Atty. Sebastian are plainly contemptuous and
disrespectful, and reference to the recent killing of two employees
FACTS: Atty. Jeremias T. Sebastian, acting as counsel de parte for is but a covert threat upon the members of the Court. That such
petitioner Rosauro Paragas, stated in his written motion, that his threats and disrespectful language contained in a pleading filed in
client petitioner Paragas prays for a reconsideration of the Courts are constitutive of direct contempt. Counsel's disavowal of
resolution the Court has given on ground that it ―constitutes a any offensive intent is of no avail, for it is a well-known and
violation of the most important right in the Bill of Rights of the established rule that defamatory words are to be taken in the
Constitution of the Philippines, a culpable violation which is a ordinary meaning attached to them by impartial observers.
ground for impeachment‖ He also mentioned in his written motion,
―when the laws and the rules are violated, the victims resort, People v. Carillo
sometimes, to armed force and to the ways of the cave-men! We do
In Re: Aguas
not want Verzosa and Reyes repeated again and again, killed in the
premises of the Supreme Court and in those of the City Hall of FACTS:
Manila.‖
From the record during the progress of the trial before the Court of
Considering that the foregoing expressions are derogatory to the first instance in Pampanga, the court had occasion to
dignity of the Court, the Court required Atty. Sebastian to answer caution Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look
why he should not be punished. Atty. Sebastian said that he did not at the attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention on the
intend to file an impeachment against the Justices and that it is a judge who was at the time examining him. The witness did not
―herculean‖ task which only exceptional men can do. He also said give heed of the warning, thereupon the judge arose from his
that it is only ―a statement of fact and of their wish. That based on seat and approach the witness, seized him by the shoulders and
observation, when the laws and the rules are violated, the victims, using the expression “lingon ang mucha” (look at me) either
sometimes, resort to armed force and to the ways of the cavemen.‖ shook him, as insisted by the attorney of the defendant, or only
He finally contended that he is just against repetition of these acts turned him about, as claimed by the judge and others. Whether the
of subversion and hate. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Sebastian is liable for witness was shaken or not, at all events” seizing him” brought the
contempt due to the derogatory things that he said HELD: Yes. Atty action and protest against the action of the judge as coercive of the
Sebastian is liable for contempt due to the derogatory things that witness and demanded that a record be made of the occurrence
and that the further hearing of the case be postponed. Two days Maceda v. Ombudsman
after the clerk of court entered a record a recital of the
FACTS: Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch
incident and a statement that on other and prior occasion, the
12 of the Regional Trial Court of Antique, seeks the review of the
attorney, Marcelino Aguas had been wanting in respect to the court
following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: (1) the Order
by making use of “improper phrases” and by interrupting the
dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to
opposing counsel in the examination of the witness. The lower court
the Supreme Court filed by petitioner; and (2) the Order dated
adjudged the attorney to be in contempt of court and suspended
November 22, 1951 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration
him from practice of his profession for a period of 20 days.
and directing petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and other
The attorney appealed but his appeal has been denied by the
controverting evidences. In his affidavit-complaint dated April 18,
lower court, he asked to be heard in justification which was granted.
1991 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent
ISSUE: Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorney's Office alleged that
petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service 1 dated February 6,
1. WON the attorney is disrespectful to the court or offensive to to
1989, by certifying "that all civil and criminal cases which have been
dignity?
submitted for decision or determination for a period of 90 days
2. WON the attorney had the right to protest and to demand that have been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1998,"
the incident be made a matter of record? when in truth and in fact, petitioner knew that no decision had been
rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases that have been
HELD: the opinion of the court that the action of the judge in submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera further alleged that
seizing Alberto Aguas by the shoulder and turning him about was petitioner similarly falsified his certificates of service for the months
unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from unlawful of February, April, May, June, July and August, all in 1989; and the
personal violence to which every witness is entitled while giving months beginning January up to September 1990, or for a total of
testimony in a court of justice. Against such conduct the appellant seventeen (17) months. On the other hand, petitioner contends that
had the right to pretest and to demand that the incident be made a he had been granted by this Court an extension of ninety (90) days
matter of record. That he did so was not contempt, providing to decide the aforementioned cases.
protest and demand were respectfully made and with due regard
for the dignity of the court XXXX Petitioner also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction
over said case despite this Court's ruling in Orap vs. Sandiganbayan,
*** While lawyers are prohibited to attribute motives to a since the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his
judge not supported by the record, lawyers must however be official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the
courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injustices of Supreme Court. Furthermore, the investigation of the Ombudsman
courts and judges constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts. ISSUE/S:
WON the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts
encroachment into the SC‘s constitutional duty of supervision over and their personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of
all inferior courts. the judiciary. Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of
petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of
HELD: Yes.
whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending
RATIO: The Court disagrees with the first Part of petitioner's basic case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a
argument. There is nothing in the decision in Orap that would determination.
restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his
The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three
official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its
administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct
personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public
and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and
respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint. In fine, where a
criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his
criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises
felonious act.
from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action
However, The Court agrees with petitioner that in the absence of on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for
any administrative action taken against him by this Court with determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted
regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being within the scope of their administrative duties. Under 11.05 of the
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall
of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Article VIII, section
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The
6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
Ombudsman is hereby directed to dismiss the complaint filed by
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from
public respondent Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera and to refer the same
the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest
to this Court for appropriate action.
municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the
Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's Fernandez v. De Ramos-Villalon
compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action
FACTS:
against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch
of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati, sought the help of
of the doctrine of separation of powers. Fernandez to help him in a land grabbing case. Palacios won the
case and he allegedly agreed to pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005, Palacios
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the
bumped into one Mrs. Lirio and to his surprise, he found out that
powers granted to it by the Constitution, 3 for such a justification
Fernandez was trying to sell HIS Makati property. Fernandez has for
not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution
his basis an alleged deed of donation that Palacio executed in favor evidence on the part of the respondent as she is not the only person
of Fernandez. Palacios, with the help of Atty. Villalon, filed a who had access or possession of the said Deed of Absolute Sale. It
complaint in order to nullify the deed of donation. Fernandez was a document readily available to the general public through the
answered that he had an Absolute Deed of Sale in his favor from Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was fully known
Palacios. Thereafter, Villalon was charged by Palacios for violation of to herein complainant as he was supposed to be a party to the said
rules 10.01, 10.02, 10.03 among others. He claims that Villalon Deed of Absolute Sale. In other words, a person cannot possibly
suppressed and excluded in the complaint the existence of an suppress the existence of a document which everyone else,
unregistered but notarized deed of absolute sale. Villalon counters especially the opposing party-litigant, knows about.
that as counsel of Palacios she is under no duty to include the fact
Rivera v. Corral
that there existed a deed of sale because only her client’s operative
facts and not other evidentiary facts needed to be included n the Facts:
complaint. The deed of sale was a matter of defense that
Fernandez, as defendant could raise as a matter of defense. Jose Rivera, a Baptist pastor, filed a Complaint for Disbarment
against Atty. Napoleon Corral. The complaint charges Atty. Corral
ISSUE: with Malpractice and Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the
Philippine Bar. According to Rivera, Atty. Corral tampered with court
Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in the complaint
records by manually changing the entries of a Decision without the
amount to a violation of 10.01, 02, 03?
Court”s knowledge and permission. Justice Ybanez wrote the
HELD: Decision (civil case — ejectment) on February 12, 1990. Atty.
Corral”s secretary received the Decision on February 23, 1990. On
No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all his dealings,
March 13, 1990, Atty. Corral filed a Notice of Appeal. The
however this duty does not require him to advance matters of
succeeding day, Atty. Corral went to the Office of the Clerk of Court,
defense on behalf of his or her client’s opponent. Villalon was not
Branch 7, Bacolod City and changed the date from February 23,
duty bound to build the case for Fernandez. The cause of action
1990 to February 29, 1990. However, Atty. Corral soon realized that
chosen by Palacios was for the annulment of the deed of donation.
there was no February 29, 1990. As a result, he filed a Reply to
Palacios had told her that the deed of sale was void for lack of
Plaintiff”s Manifestation claiming that he actually received the
consideration. It was not a necessary fact for his case. Only the
Decision on February 28, 1990.
client’s operative facts and not the other evidentiary facts need to
be included in the Complaint. It is correct for the respondent to Atty. Corral claimed that he corrected the papers in the presence
argue that pointing out the existence of the January 12 Deed of and with the approval of the Clerk of Court. He attributed the
Absolute Sale was a matter of defense which the defendant in said correction to a typographical error.
civil case can freely point out to the trial judge through his own
pleadings. It cannot be argued that there was suppression of
The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and was filed on time. This constitutes as grave misconduct upon the
recommendation. They found Atty. Corral guilty and recommended court. Further, his act is a “disgraceful indictment on his moral fiber
his suspension for 6 months. Atty. Corral filed a motion for and personal fitness to his calling as a lawyer.” It is an
reconsideration of the IBP”s decision but this was denied. Atty. embarrassment to the members of the Bar. Atty. Corral is
Corral filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC. He claimed suspended for one year and sternly warned that a repetition will
that there was no due process or hearing. warrant a more severe penalty.

Issues: Johnny Ng v. Alar Adm. Case No. 7252

1. W/N the penalty of suspension for 6 months is sufficient. FACTS

Held/Ratio:

1. NO. Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor
case filed with the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. On
The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is to
appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the dismissal. In his Motion for
punish and discipline erring lawyers and to safeguard the
Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar used
administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public
improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the
from the misconduct of lawyers. If it is evident that a lawyer lacks
Labor Arbiter and the ponente of the NLRC decision. Johnny Ng, one
moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or is
of the respondents, filed a disbarment case against Alar before the
unworthy to continues as an officer of the court, he may be
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for such misbehavior.
suspended or disbarred.
Alar contended, inter alia, that the Rules of Court/Code of
A lawyer must constantly “uphold the integrity and dignity of the
Professional Responsibility applies only suppletorily at the NLRC
legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his duties to
when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinary
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.” Every lawyer
matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it and that Rule X
should act and comport himself in such manner that would promote
of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions
public confidence in the integrity of the profession.
against misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in cases before
Atty. Corral violated his solemn oath as a lawyer by engaging in it. Finally he asserted that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional
unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct. Responsibility does not apply to lawyers practicing at the NLRC, the
latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC Commissioners are
He committed an act of dishonesty by altering the material dates on not judges nor justices and the Code of Judicial Conduct similarly do
the Notice of Appeal. He made it seem that it was timely filed within not apply to them, not being part of the judiciary.
the period prescribed. He deceived his client into thinking that it
ISSUE accommodate Chan. He also said that Tinga prioritized the case and
that Chan already knew of the outcome of the case before the
Is a lawyer’s misbehavior before the NLRC susceptible of the
decision was promulgated. Chan related that he approached De La
provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct?
Serna for the purpose of amicably settling the case, and offered him
HELD to be their retainer in Bohol. He denied having said to De La Serna
that he had already spent so much money for the Supreme Court.
The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking
both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied ISSUE:
accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence.
Whether or not Serna is guilty of indirect contempt.
Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings
that does not admit any justification. HELD:

The assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners, Yes. Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the court by
not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the judiciary setting up opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It is not
and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders but it
to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that also brings authority of the court and administration of law into
respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the disrepute or in some manner impedes the due administration of
NLRC, he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath- justice. Indirect contempt is one committed out of or not in the
bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to presence of the court but tends to be little, degrade obstruct or
the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and embarrass the court and justice. Improper conduct tending to
must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. directly or indirectly impede obstruct or degrade the administration
of justice is also indirect contempt. A lawyer is first and foremost an
Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of
officer of the court and it is his duty to maintain the respect due to
Professional Responsibility. His actions erode the public’s
the courts and judicial officers. While he is expected to bring forth
perception of the legal profession.
irregular and questionable practices of those sitting in court it is
Fudot v. Cattleya Land important that this criticism shall be bona fide and shall not spill
over the walls of decency and propriety. His statements bear badges
FACTS: of falsehood because the version of the witnesses disputes his
De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga, the ponente in the statements. He maliciously made these declarations irresponsibly.
Fudot case, be inhibited because it was alleged that he received 10 The libelous attack on the integrity and credibility of Justice Tinga
million pesos from Chan in exchange for a favorable decision. De La degrade the dignity of the court and erode public confidence in it.
Serna suggests that Tinga abandoned the doctrine in Lim v. Jorge to He is hereby fined P 3,000.00.
Facts: the first time that they saw all the justices.

De La Serna requests for the inhibition of Associate Justice Tinga, Issue:

claiming he received P10 Million from Johnny Chan in exchange for
1. W/N De La Serna should be charged with indirect contempt
a favorable decision in a land dispute. He relates that sometime in
2006, Chan informed him that he had already bought the interest of Held/Ratio:
Cattleya Land, Inc. (Cattleya) over a property adjacent to the
property subject of the case and that he was interested in putting 1. YES. An accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to
up a resort/hotel in the property. He wanted to purchase Fudot”s disprove, the complainant must present panoply of evidence in
interest in the property as well to put an end to the litigation. support of such an accusation. It will take more than the
uncorroborated and independent statements of Atty. De La Serna to
They did not reach an agreement on the purchase price. In 2007, a cast an aura of credibility to his accusations.
certain Atty. Petralba also had advanced knowledge of the decision.
The decision was promulgated on Sept. 13, 2007. Decisions of the
According to De La Serna, Chan also told him that all negotiations Court are posted in its website a few days after their promulgation.
for the purchase of his clients rights were off and that he had In this case, the decision was published in the web on Sept. 19, or
already given out P10 million to Tinga in exchange for a favorable before the decision was posted in the Manila Central Post Office on
Decision, De La Serna a legal retainer and a monthly fee to act as his Sept. 27. However, Mr. Chan stated that he learned of the decision
lawyer in Bohol. only sometime in October of 2007, after Atty. Petralba had told him
about it. It would be irrational for Chan to meet further with De La
In his pleadings, De La Serna reiterated that the decision in this case
Serna and when he had already paid for P10 Million pesos for a
was a “rogue decision” and “like a mad dog, it should be slain at
favorable decision when he already had advanced knowledge.
right.” He also finds it surprising that the instant case was decided
less than 2 years after it was submitted for resolution when the Also, the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to decide
Oppus has been pending for 10 years before the Court. Also, out of cases within 2 years from the date of submission. As for the Oppus
20,000 other cases, why was this instant case selected and decided case, it is no longer pending as it was already been disposed of and
upon in such a short time? The Court charged Atty. De La Serna with was decided by another ponente. As pointed out by Justice Carpio,
indirect contempt. At the hearing, De La Serna reiterated his there are no more than ten thousand cases pending in the Supreme
arguments which was corroborated by his son. Chan admitted that Court at any one time.
he approached De La Serna for the purpose of amicably settling
their case with Cattleya, and offered him to be their retainer in Claiming that De La Serna had been informed that a member of the
Bohol. However, he denied having said to De La Serna that he had Court was involved in bribery, yet he chose to remain silent in the
already spent so much money for the Supreme Court. He and Atty. meantime and to divulge the information long after he had come to
Petralba added that the hearing was know that he lost the case.
He failed to inform the Court of this matter waited until Nov. 4, for the accused culminated in her order on the demurrer to
2007 before he divulged the alleged bribery in his Request for evidence dismissing the charges against the accused despite the fact
Inhibition which he did not even alleged in his prior Motion for that the prosecution was able to prove by testimonial and
Reconsideration. While admitting that he did not even verify from documentary evidence the irregularities committed by the accused,
other sources if Mr. Chan”s statement had any factual basis, De La Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Salvador Totaan and Senior
Serna offers another feeble explanation for his delayed reaction in Agrarian Reform Technologist Flordeliz Totaan; they processed and
that he could not just go to the Supreme Court and request for approved the applications of at least thirteen (13) persons who
investigation, as he could not even pass through the guards. A were not qualified to become farmer-beneficiaries as they were
lawyer of De La Serna”s caliber and experience would know that neither farmers nor residents of the barangay or the municipality
there is a proper way of lodging a formal complaint for where the subject property is located.
investigation, including sending it by registered mail.
The respondent submitted her comment and pointed out that an
De La Serna is found guilty of indirect contempt of court. examination of the complaint would readily show that it was
prepared by the private prosecutors. She denied brokering a
Bondoc v. Judge Simbulan
settlement of the cases and fast-tracking the hearing of the cases in
Facts: Juan Pablo P. Bondoc (complainant) charged Judge Divina Luz favor of the accused as her only objective was to have a weekly
P. Aquino-Simbulan (respondent) with partiality, gross ignorance of hearing. The respondent likewise denied the charge of partiality for
the law and gross misconduct in the handling the Criminal Case of her failure to act on the suspension of the accused, contending that
"People of the Philippines v. Salvador Totaan and Flordeliz Totaan. it was the duty of the private prosecutors to file a motion to cite the
The complainant alleged that during the initial pre-trial conference responsible heads of the government agencies for indirect
on June 16, 2003, the respondent asked the lawyers of the parties contempt for their failure to implement lawful orders of the court.
"to approach the bench and suggested that the cases be settled She claimed that in the absence of such motion, she assumed that
because she did not want the accused (the spouses Totaan) to be the accused had already been preventively suspended.
administratively suspended. The complainant further alleged that
Issues: Whether or not Attys. Stephen David and Lanee David be
the respondent strongly requested the complainant’s counsel to
held liable for contempt of court
exert all efforts to convince the complainant and his family to settle
the cases. Also, the complainant claimed that aside from showing Held: Yes. The allegations in the complaint were unfounded and
partiality, bias, concern, sympathy and inclination in favor of the baseless and should be dismissed. Other than the bare allegations
accused, the respondent humiliated Atty. Lanee David (wife of of the complainant, no proof was presented to corroborate the
Private Prosecutor Stephen David, was co-counsel for complainant charge that the respondent sought to have the criminal cases
in the criminal cases) in open court. Lastly, the complainant alleged settled; neither was there a showing that the respondent fast
that the bias, partiality, prejudice and inclination of the respondent tracked the cases to favor the accused. Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others. While the complaint was
filed in the name of former Representative Juan Pablo P. Bondoc, he
never really appeared in court and it is reasonable to conclude that
the two lawyers crafted the complaint and incorporated therein all
the unfounded accusations against the respondent in order to
conceal their inadequacies in the handling of their client’s cases.
The defense of Attys. Stephen and Lanee David that what they did is
just a consequence of their commitment to their client can hardly
exculpate them as a client’s cause does not permit an attorney to
cross the line between liberty and license. Lawyers must always keep
in perspective that since they are administrators of justice, oath-
bound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as
many suppose, but to the administration of justice. As a lawyer, he is
an officer of the court with the duty to uphold its dignity and
authority and not promote distrust in the administration of justice

Thus, Attys. Stephen L. David and Lanee S. Cui-David GUILTYof

Indirect Contempt and accordingly impose on each of them the
FINE of P2,500.00 with the STERN WARNING that a commission of a
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
CANON 12 new branch of CFI Quezon without acting on manifestation.
Arraignment date was set but more postponements was filed at the
People v. Jardin
instance of accused; moved for reinvestigation again. Arraignment
FACTS: finally happened on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and
asked for trial to be postponed. On postponed date, accused asked
The criminal prosecutions originated from a letter- for another postponement.
complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon requesting the
Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary criminal action under Article ISSUE:
217 of the Revised Penal Code against Demetrio Jardin for
Whether the acts of the accused and his counsel obstruct
malversation of public funds thru falsification of public documents
the administration of justice.
on six counts. The cases were assigned to Assistant Fiscal Meliton V.
Angeles who set them for preliminary investigation. The accused HELD:
moved to postpone the investigation four times but the accused
The Supreme Court ruled that the dilatory tactics of the
and his counsel failed to appear every time. Inspire of their absence,
defense counsel and the failure of both judge and the fiscal to take
the preliminary investigation was conducted and shortly afterwards,
effective counter measures to obviate the delaying acts constitute
the six information’s were filed against the accused before the
obstruction of justice. An attorney as an officer of the court is called
Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The arraignment was set for
upon to assist in the due administration of justice. Like the court
May 9, 1967. On the records it was show that from May 9, 1967, the
itself, he is an instrument to advance its cause. For this reason, any
arraignment was re-set for June 6; then re-set for June 26; then
act on the part of a lawyer that obstructs perverts or impedes the
from August 16, the same was re-set for September 5, all because of
administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
the motions for postponement filed at the instance of the accused.
disciplinary action against him.
When the arraignment of the accused was called on September 5,
1967, counsel for the accused verbally moved for reinvestigation on Acts which amount to obstruction in the administration of justice
the ground that the accused was not given the opportunity to may take many forms. They include such acts as instructing a
present his defense during the preliminary investigation. This was complaining witness in a criminal action not to appear at the
granted by the court and the first reinvestigation was set on scheduled hearing so that the case against the client, the accused,
November 24, 1967. Accused moved to postpone many times, failed would be dismissed. asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which
still to appear. When he finally appeared with his counsel, they the lawyer knows his client did not commit, advising a client who is
asked for 15 days to file memorandum. The memorandum was detained for a crime to escape from prison prosecuting clearly
never filed, so the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation before frivolous cases or appeals to drain the resources of the other party
the court that the records of these cases be returned and the trial and compel him to submit out of exhaustion and filing multiple
on the merits of the same be set. The court transferred the case to
petitions or complaints for a cause that has been previously
rejected in the false expectation of getting favorable action.
ISSUE:
Cabagui v. Court of Appeals
Whether or not Respondent Millado is guilty of violating
FACTS: Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under its Resolution of November 20, 1974, the Court, HELD:

acting on a third petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision
The Court finds respondent, Attorney Eugenio M. Millado,
affirming petitioner’s conviction of the crime of malversation of
guilty of gross negligence in not having complied with a “show
public funds, as filed on November 13, 1974 by his attorney,
cause” resolution and of abusing the right of recourse to the Court
Eugenio M. Millado, with address at Koronadal, South Cotabato,
by filing multiple petitions for the same cause in the false
ordered that said petition be expunged from the records and
expectation of getting favorable action from one division as against
required “Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause within ten (10) days
the adverse action of the other division. The Court deems his
from notice hereof why disciplinary action should not be taken
suspension from the practice of law since February, 1975 as
against him for trifling with the Court by filing this third petition
sufficient penalty and now lifts his suspension with the warning that
despite previous resolutions of this Court.” In its previous
the commission in the future by respondent of the same or other
Resolution of May 8, 1974 referring to the first two petitions filed by
infractions shall be dealt with severely.
respondent Millado on behalf of the same petitioner, the Court had
dismissed the secondpetition (filed on March 18, 1974) by Casals v. Cusi Jr.
respondent Millado in the guise of a new petition for certiorari with
preliminary injunction but which merely raised again the same FACTS:
questions in his first petition (filed on January 9, 1974) seeking to December 8, 1972, Atty. Leonido C. Delante as counsel for
set aside petitioner’s conviction for malversation of public funds, by respondents states that while he received notice of the Court's
decision of the court of first instance of Misamis Oriental dated June resolution "no accompanying copy of the petition has been
20, 1963 as affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals’ attached hence the counsel would not be able to prepare the
decision dated June 8, 1973, for alleged lack of jurisdiction and comments filed his first motion for a ten-day extension of time to
praying for reversal of the conviction or for a reduction of his submit respondents' comment. The Court granted first motion for
criminal liability by finding appellant-petitioner guilty of technical extension.
malversation only for the amount of P1,161.65.
December 14, 1972, Atty. Primo O. Orellan on behalf of Delante,
Said first petition had been denied on January 15, 1974 by virtue of Orellan & Associates as counsel for respondents filed a
the petition having been filed late by 4 months and 25 days beyond second motion for extension of ten days to submit respondents'
the last date for filing which fell due since August 15, 1973.
comment on the ground that Atty. L.C. Delante, counsel of record, of work in his office and the Christmas Season for not having
got sick and that Atty. Delante has just recovered from his ailment. finalized and typed out the comments in a clean copy.

December 28, 1972, Atty. Leonido C. Delante filed a third motion for His present explanation is not even borne out by Atty. Fernandez'
"a last extension of fifteen days to submit the comment, stating the medical certificate which shows that he was confined in the hospital
undersigned counsel already prepared the final draft but due to for sinusitis only from December 23-26. Hence he had sufficient
pressure of work in his office and matters occasioned by the time and opportunity to submit the comments by the extended
Christmas season, the same has not been finalized and typed out deadline.
in a clean copy for filing.
He submits no explanation for his gross neglect in not seeing to it,
The Court granted the said extensions totalling twenty-five days. assuming that Atty. Fernandez was to prepare the required
Having noted respondents' failure to file their comment comment, that the required comment was filed within the last
notwithstanding the numerous extensions, the Court resolved to extension secured by him from the Court on his assurance that the
require Atty. Delante to explain and show cause why they failed to final draft was ready. His inaction unduly prevented and delayed for
file the required comment. a considerable period the Court's prompt disposition of the petition.

Atty. Delante in his explanation claimed that in view of his pressing His unsatisfactory explanation evinces a willful disregard of his
professional commitments, he requested his clients to have the solemn duty as an attorney to employ in the conduct of a case
answer prepared by another lawyer Atty. Antonio Fernandez. It was "such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and
only upon receipt of the Court's resolution requiring his explanation never seek to mislead" the courts.
that he learned that Atty. Fernandez underwent a surgical
Court has in several instances suspended lawyers from the practice
operation.
of law for failure to file appellants' briefs in criminal cases despite
ISSUE: WON Atty. Delante’s explanation deserves credence? repeated extensions of time obtained by them, with the reminder
that "the trust imposed on counsel in accordance not only with the
HELD: NO.
canons of legal ethics but with the soundest traditions of the
In his previous motions for extension, he never mentioned his profession would require fidelity on their part.”
belated allegation now that another lawyer had been retained.
The Court has ever stressed that a lawyer must do his best to honor
In his second motion for extension, supra, Atty. Delante's law office his oath, as there would be a great detriment to, if not a failure of
cited as reason the fact that he had gotten sick. the administration of justice if courts could not rely on the
submissions and representations made by lawyers in the conduct
In his third motion for a last 15-day extension, Delante assured the of a case.
Court that he has already prepared the final draft and cited pressure
The Court hereby suspends Atty. Leonido C. Delante from the of an understanding between him and the bank that it would not
practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective from collect from him the balance of the judgment. It was on this ground
his receipt of notice hereof, with the warning that repetition of the that the trial court absolved Uy Teng Piao from the complaint.
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE/S:
Roxas v. Court of Appeals
1. WON there is an agreement between Uy Teng Piao and the bank
National Bank v. Uy Teng Piao not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment

FACTS: 2. WON the appearance of one of the lawyers of PNB as a witness is

recognized
On September 9, 1924, the CFI of Manila rendered a judgment in
favor of PNB and against Uy Teng Piao in a civil case for the sum of HELD:
P17, 232.42 with interest at 7% from June 1, 1924, plus 10% of the
1. None. Uy Teng Piao has failed to prove that there was an
sum amount for attorney's fees and costs. The court ordered Uy
agreement.
Teng Piao to deposit the amount with the clerk of the court within 3
months from the date of the judgment. In case of his failure to do 2. No. He must not testify as a witness for his client, unless it is
so, the 2 mortgaged properties described in TCT Nos. 7264 and necessary as provided by the Code of Professional Responsibility
8274 should be sold at public auction in accordance with the law
and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment. Uy Teng
Piao failed to comply with the order of the court, and the sheriff of RATIO:
the City of Manila sold the two parcels of land at public auction to
PNB for P300 and P1, 000 respectively. On February 11, 1925, PNB Uy Teng Piao has failed to prove any valid agreement on the part of
secured from Uy Teng Piao a waiver of his right to redeem the the bank not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment.
property described in TCT No. 8274. On the same date, the bank The alleged agreement rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of
sold said property to Mariano Santos for P8, 600. The other parcel the defendant. When asked on cross-examination if Pecson was not
of land was subsequently resold by the bank for P2,700, because in Iloilo at the time of the execution of Uy Teng Piao's waiver of his
the account of Uy Teng Piao was credited with the sum of P11, 300. right to redeem, he answered that he did not know; asked when
The bank credited Uy Teng Piao with the full amount. Pecson had spoken to him about the matter, he replied that he did
not remember. One of the attorneys for PNB testified that Uy Teng
The bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the Piao renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land in Calle
balance of P11, 574.33, with interest at 7% per annum from August Ronquillo, because his friend (Mariano Santos) was interested in
1, 1930. Uy Teng Piao alleged that he waived his right to redeem the buying it. The bank ought to have presented Pecson as a witness, or
land described in the TCT of the first parcel of land, in consideration his deposition if he was not residing in Manila at the time of the
trial. With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, although Berbano v. Barcelona
the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same
Doctrines:
time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should
not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should • A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
withdraw from the active management of the case. legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by
clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of
Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics:When a lawyer is a witness for
his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The
his client, except as to merely formal matters, such as the
bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
attestation or custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave
honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor
the trial of the case to other counsel. Except when essential to the
to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end,
his client. Uy Teng Piao's testimony as to the alleged agreement is
nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which
very uncertain. There is no mention as to such an agreement on the
might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in
part of the bank. It only provides the land in Calle Ronquillo.
the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
If Pecson had made any such agreement as Uy Teng Piao claims, he
Facts:
would have required Uy Teng Piao, a Chinese business man, to
waive his right to redeem both parcels of land, and that he would Berbano seeks the disbarment of Atty. Barcelona for Malpractice
have insisted upon some evidence of the agreement in writing. Uy and Gross Misconduct Unbecoming a Lawyer, Dereliction of Duty
Teng Piao waived his right to redeem the land in Calle Ronquillo, and Unjust Enrichment. Barcelona is one of the heirs of Hilapo.
because a friend of his wished to purchase it and was willing to pay Hilapo owns a lot in Alabang which is being claimed by Filinvest in a
P8, 600, and the bank agreed to credit Uy Teng Piao with the full case. The heirs of Hilapo appointed Mr. Daen as their attorney-in-
amount of the sale. If it be conceded that there was such an fact giving him authority to prosecute their case. Mr. Daen was
understanding between Pecson and Uy Teng Piao, it is not shown arrested on the strength of an expired warrant of arrest and he was
that Pecson was authorized to make any such agreement for the detained in jail. Since Mr. Daen needed the assistance of a lawyer
bank. Only the board of directors or the persons empowered by the for his release, Atty. Barcelona was recommended. Atty. Barcelona
board of directors could bind the bank by such an agreement. There arrived in jail and Mr. Daen engaged his services to get him out.
is no merit in the contention that since the bank accepted the Atty. Barcelona told Berbano that if they could produce FIFTY
benefit of the waiver it cannot now repudiate the alleged THOUSAND pesos he will cause the release of Mr. Daen the
agreement. The fact that the bank after having bought the land for following day.
P1, 000 resold it for P8,600 and credited the Uy Teng Piao with the
full amount of the resale was a sufficient consideration for the Since it was late in the evening, Berbano couldn”t produce 50k.
execution of defendant's waiver of his right to redeem. Atty. Barcelona insisted that he must pay even just a little so
Berbano gave him 15k. Atty. Barcelona went to ChowKing and CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
received the money there. Before he left, he asked Berbano to meet the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
him at Max”s Resto at around 12 noon. Atty. Barcelona left because
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times upholds the integrity and
according to him, he would go see a justice from the SC who could
dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
help the release of Mr. Daen.
integrated bar.
The next day, Berbano went to Max”s Resto. He told Berbano that
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
he just came from the SC and that he “fixed” the case of Mr. Daen.
to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
Berbano was surprised because he did not have with him any single
conduct by others.
document at the time. Berbano handed him a “pay-to-cash” check
for 24k. Atty. Barcelona said that Justices of the SC do not accept CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
checks but he accepted it saying that he will have the check properties of his client that may
rediscounted. The next morning, Atty. Barcelona called Berbano and
said that he was not able to rediscount the check and Berbano must come into his possession.
produce the amount of 5k and give it to him in Max”s Resto at 12 Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property
noon. Atty. Barcelona did not show up. Atty. Barcelona then called collected or received for or
their house and moved their meeting to Mcdo. He was not there.
His wife called Berbano to move the meeting to their house. In their from the client.
house, they gave 10k. They again met up with Atty. Barcelona and Atty. Barcelona has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting
gave him another 15k and 1k for gas. to clients that he has the proper connections to secure the relief
A week after, Daen was still not released. When they called Atty. they seek, and thereafter, ask for money, which will allegedly be
Barcelona”s house he allegedly boarded a private plane to attend a given to such connections. In this case, he misrepresented to
peace talk with the Muslims. Another week passed, Berbano saw Berbano that he could get the release of Mr. Porfirio Daen through
Atty. Barcelona and said that he will return the entire amount of his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Not only that, he even
64k. But he never showed up and never returned their calls. had the audacity to tell Berbano that the Justices of the Supreme
Court do not accept checks.
Issues:
It”s also not his first time to be charged with and found guilty of
1. W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred? conduct unbecoming a lawyer. In a case filed by Gil Aquino, Atty.
Held/Ratio: Barcelona misrepresented that he could secure the restructuring of
a loan though his connection with a legal assistant named Gonzalo
1. YES. Atty. Barcelona is guilty of culpable violation of the Code of in PNB. He got 60k from Aquino but there was no such employee by
Professional Responsibility:
the name of Gonzalo. (nawalan na ng pera na foreclose pa ang cause of action. Bajar then filed another case for maintenance of
property) possession, now with the DAR-Adjudication Board (DARAB).

The Judiciary has been besieged enough with accusations of Sebastian now filed an administrative case with the SC for
corruption and malpractice. For a member of the legal profession to disbarment against Bajar for violation of Rule 10.03 of the Code of
further stoke the embers of mistrust on the judicial system with Professional Responsibility since she misused the rules of
such irresponsible representations is reprehensible and cannot be procedure through forum-shopping to obstruct the administration
tolerated. Atty. Barcelona made a mockery of the Judiciary and of justice. Bajar filed a comment with the court alleging (1) that
further eroded public confidence in courts and lawyers. Sebastian had no personality to file a complaint because he was not
the real party in interest and (2) that she only filed the cases to avail
Sebastian v. Bajar
of all the legal remedies attributed by the law to her client.
Doctrines: Sebastian submitted a reply alleging that Bajar did not confront the
issue on disbarment but merely passed upon the issues which were
• An important factor in determining the existence of forum- already passed upon in the cases decided above.
shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-
litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same (Not Really Important) The SC ordered Bajar to file a Rejoinder, but
reliefs. Bajar only did so a year after because the Court ordered the NBI to
arrest and detain her. The SC forwarded the case with the IBP for
• “While a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should comment and the IBP recommended that Bajar be suspended
not be at the expense of truth and administration of justice.” indefinitely because she clearly violated the rule against forum
Facts: shopping for purposes of delay. The Supreme Court noted the IBP”s
recommendation and the Court Administration issued a circular
Bajar worked for the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of regarding the notation. However, the IBP found out that despite
the Department of Agrarian Reform. She represented Tanlioco, an their recommendation Bajar still performed her duties as a lawyer.
agricultural lessee in a land owned, and respondent in an ejectment The IBP recommended her disbarment.
case filed, by petitioner Sebastian”s wife. The RTC rendered
judgment against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order Issues:
converting the land use from agricultural to residential. The CA and 1. W/N complainant Sebastian had legal standing to file a complaint
SC affirmed the ejectment. against Bajar
Bajar, despite the finality of the ejectment order, filed with the RTC 2. (TOPIC) W/N Bajar was guilty of violating Rule 10.3 regarding
a complaint for specific performance to produce the conversion the misuse of rules of procedure toobstruct the administration of
order. The RTC dismissed on the ground of res judicata and lack of justice.
3. W/N Bajar was guilty of disobedience to the SC for not complying to perform her duties.
with their orders
BAJAR WAS MERELY SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS.
4. W/N Bajar should be disbarred for violating the recommendation
Hegna v. Paderanga
by the IBP and subsequent “noting” of the SC
Doctrine:
Held/Ratio:
• A lawyer ought to have known that he cannot acquire the
1. YES. Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis or
property of his client which is in litigation. A thing is said to be in
a class of its own. In a disbarment proceeding, the complainant
litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in
need not be a party-in-interest because the real party in interest is
court, but also the moment that becomes subject to the judicial
the public. The complainant is merely an informant of the
action of the judge.
wrongdoing of the lawyer.
Facts:
2. YES. The fact that she merely availed of all the legal remedies
“available” to her client is not an excuse. While lawyers owe their Hegna leased a portion of land, which was owned by the heirs of
entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the Sabina Baclayon for 10 years. Hegna filed a case against the
defense of their client”s rights, they should not forget that they are Panaguinip spouses alleging that they entered the vacant portion of
first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every the leased premises and then built a shop without his consent.
effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of Despite his demands, they refused to comply with his demands. The
justice. Bajar”s act of filing cases with identical issues in other MTCC rendered a Decision in favor of Hegna, ordering the spouses
venues despite the final ruling, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and to vacate the leased premises.
the Supreme Court, is beyond the bounds of the law.
Subsequently, Atty. Paderanga filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim
3. YES. The SC”s orders to submit a reply and a rejoinder are not before Sheriff Suarin, the sheriff executing the judgment in the said
mere requests. A Court”s Resolution is not to be construed as a civil case. He claimed that he was the owner of another parcel of
mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, land and a FUSO (Canter series) vehicle, which he bought from the
inadequately, or selectively. Bajar”s disobedience to these orders spouses, both of which could be erroneously levied by a writ of
shows her disrespect for the Court. execution issued in the civil case. he filed for Annulment of
Judgment with prayer for the issuance of an injunction and
4. NO. The IBP”s recommendation, even though noted by the SC is
temporary restraining order (TRO) with damages against Hegna,
not tantamount to an order by the SC.
Judge Rosales and Suarin.
Therefore, prior to the resolution of this case, the suspension
recommended is ineffectual and Bajar is still entitled
Hegna sent a letter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant had transpired that he received the affidavit of a third-party claim
(OBC) against Paderanga for deliberately falsifying documents, executed by Paderange, stating that the he was the owner of the
which caused delay in the execution of the decision, arguing that property and motor vehicle.
the third-party claim was full of irregularities, one of which was that
The Court is more inclined to believe that when Hegna and the
the transfer of the properties were not registered with the Register
Panaguinips failed to reach an agreement, Paderange came forward
of Deeds.
as a third-party claimant to prevent the levy and execution of said
Paderange replied that he did not bother to register such properties properties. He, therefore, violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
for “estate-planning purposes” and that he had planned to re-sell Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not
the properties. engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. This
conduct has been construed not to pertain exclusively to the
The Court referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated
performance of a lawyer”s professional duties.
Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP found that there was a
multitude of irregularities surrounding the execution of the Affidavit In addition, while the act of registration of a document is not
and, coupled with the letter sent by the Panaguinip spouses left necessary in order to give it legal effect as between the parties,
unrebutted by Paderanga, there is substantial evidence that the requirements for the recording of the instruments are designed to
Affidavit of Third Party Claim was purposely filed to thwart the prevent frauds and to permit and require the public to act with the
enforcement of the decision in the forcible entry case. This was also presumption that a recorded instrument exists and is genuine.
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors who suspended Paderange While Paderange”s acts may not be considered as falsification, he
for 1 year. had shown intent to defraud the government, which had the right
to collect revenue from him.
Issue:
Plus Builders v. Revilla
1. W/N Paderanga violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility. FACTS:

Held/Ratio: A Petition for Disbarment was filed by Plus Builders Inc. and
Edgardo C. Garcia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
1. YES. Although Paderange denied having acted as counsel for the
against Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for committing a willful and
Panaguinips in the forcible entry case filed by complainant, his
intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure
involvement in the said case was still highly suspect. After the writ
and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and
of execution had been issued, he went with them to amicably settle
collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.
with Hegna on two separate occasions, ostensibly to protect his
own interests. He actually led Hegna to believe that he was, in fact, On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the
the counsel for defendants-spouses. It was only after the meetings Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant,
Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Whether or not respondent guilty of violating the attorney’s
Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent Atty. Anastacio oath, Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere Responsibility.
tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The
HELD:
case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this
Court sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found
pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have guilty of gross misconduct. Taking the cudgels from the former
committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should
the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the
filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, court. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty
and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law.
decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of
unauthorized practice of law – holding themselves out as his truth and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in
partners/associates in the law firm. every exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
Respondent denied all allegations and believes that the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from
courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory
unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by
designed to protect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman,
misusing court processes. After a careful consideration of herein
et. al. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was
respondent’s motion for reconsideration and humble
terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their
acknowledgment of his misfeasance, the Court was persuaded to
former counsel did not explain/argue their position very well,
extend a degree of leniency towards the respondent by reducing his
refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the
suspension period from two years to six months.
new counsel, respondent relied on what the tenants/farmers told
him in the course of his interview. He avers that he merely Fil-Garcia Inc. v. Hernandez
exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his clients
were entitled under the law. He submitted that if he was indeed Fact
guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action he took in behalf Filomeno Garcia, president of Fil-Garcia Inc., after losing his
of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind case in the CA for a sum of money, secured the serviced of Atty.
consideration, pardon and forgiveness. Fernando Hernandez, who received the denied resolution for Garcia
ISSUE: as counsel, and was given 15 days to appeal.

Instead of filing the appeal, Hernandez filed for a Motion for

Extension the day before the expiration of the period to file the
appeal,, alleging that he was counsel for a mayoralty candidate and The filing of 3 motions for extension on the careless
a senatorial candidate, and he was also needed in the canvassing of assumption that each motion will be granted by the Court, and
votes, so the urgency of the nature of his work will not allow him without taking care of informing himself of the Court's action
the limited time to file the appeal, thus asked for 30 days extension. thereon, constitutes inexcusable negligence. Moreover, respondent
knowingly referred to Rule 65 in the petition he belatedly filed as an
30 days later, Hernandez again filed his 2nd Motion for
afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the appeal.
Extension, this time, because he fell ill, and his physical state will
not allow him to file the appeal on time, thus asking for 20 days Rule 12.04 enjoins a lawyer not to "unduly delay a case, impede the
extension. execution of judgment or misuse court proceedings." While
pressure of work or some other unavoidable reasons may constrain
20 days later, the 3rd Motion for Extension was filed, with
a lawyer to file a motion for extension of time to file pleadings, he
the grand excuse that because he fell ill the last time, his work load
should not presume that his motion for extension of time will be
piled up, thus requiring him more time to conclude on the work
granted. Motions for extension of time to file a pleading are not
load he missed when he was ill, plus the appeal, hence the request
granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound discretion of the
for 10 days extension, to which 10 days later, he did actually file the
court. It is thus incumbent on any movant for extension to exercise
appeal. (Finally!)
due diligence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Court's
Of course, afterwards, Hernandez learned that all three action on his motion, by timely inquiry from the Clerk of Court.
Motions for Extensions were denied by the court, and to his dismay, Should he neglect to do so, he runs the risk of time running out on
received a copy of the resolution denying the appeal all together. him, for which he will have nobody but himself to blame.
However, instead of informing his client, Fil-Garcia, he decides to
A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue as counsel should
forward the resolution of denial of the appeal some 7 months later,
inform the client and ask that he be allowed to withdraw from the
which greatly angered his client, pushing him to file for his
case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel
disbarment.
who can study the situation and work out a solution.
Issue
To make matters worse, it took respondent 7 months from the time
Is Hernandez liable for malpractice, gross misconduct, he received a copy of the Court's resolution to inform complainant
tantamount to violation of his oath as a lawyer, which warrant his of the same.
disbarment?
He was merely suspended for 6 months, considering that
Held respondent humbly admitted his fault in not immediately informing
complainant of the status of the case.
Yes, to gross negligence, but no to disbarment.
De Espino v. Atty. Presquito complainant and her late husband is already in respondent and Mrs.
Ares’ name, the injustice of respondent’s different maneuvers to
De espino vs atty presquito
evade payment of the eight checks - due and unpaid since 1996 -
Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complain charging becomes more manifest.
respondentt"having employed fraud, trickery and dishonest means
It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless
in refusing to honor and pay late husband Virgilio Espino, when he
checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public
was still alive, the sum of P763,060.00" Respondent issues post
interest and public order. the issuance of worthless checks
dated checks as payment. The 8 post-dated checks issued by
constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyer’s moral
respondent were all dishonored. Mr. Espino made repeated
character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his
demands for payment from respondent but the latter refused. The
professional duties as a member of the bar. ATTY. PEPITO C.
land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs ares
PRESQUITO is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby
Defense: suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, and ordered to
immediately account with complainant regarding the sale of the
Respondent denied any wrongdoing, "fraud,trickery and dishonest piece of land, which has been subdivided in the name of respondent
means" with the late Mr. Espino were totally false and baseless but and his business partner.
does not deny the issuance of 8 check. .Respondents claim that he
and Mr. Espino, agreed that Mr Espino will not encash the checks Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa v. Atty. Paguinto
until the right of way problem has been resolved. In addition,
FACTS:
respondent claims that the balance would be offset with the cost he
incurred when he defended Mr. Espino’s son in a criminal case. On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of
the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO),
Ruling:
received a Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on
Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the eight dishonored October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the
checks, respondent’s indifference to complainant’s entreaties for Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the General
payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an Manager. The notice was signed by respondent. At the October 14,
officer of the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent and PNP Sr.
Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of
towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing the the then current Board, Gerango, complainant’s predecessor, as
eight (8) checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself Chair, appointed
demands for payment until complainant was forced to file this others to replace the removed directors, and appointed respondent
complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the disposition of this as Board Secretary.
case with dilatory tactics. Considering that the property of
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
GEMASCO office and its premises, the pump houses, water facilities, respondent’s deference is underscored by the fact that willful
and operations. On even date, respondent sent letter-notices to disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for
complainant and the four removed directors informing them of contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver
their removal from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold
advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.
duties of their positions.Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001
The Court notes that respondent had previously been
with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a
suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation of
complaint for annulment of the proceedings taken during the
the Code of Professional Responsibility, he having been found to
October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly.
have received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing
The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution of February that he had filed a case for her when he had not. It appears,
21, 2002, declared the questioned general assembly null and void however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more
for having been conducted in violation of GEMASCO’s By-Laws and severe penalty this time is thus called for.
the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. The RD’s Resolution of
Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is
February 21, 2002 was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction of CDA.
SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law for violation of
Thus, complainant files a disbarment case against respondent.
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
ISSUE: Lawyer’s Oath, effective immediately.

Whether or not respondent is liable for violation of Canon An Information for Estafa was filed, As the joint affidavit-complaint
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. did not indicate the involvement of complainant, complainant filed
a Motion to Quash the Information which the trial court granted.
HELD:
complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez
Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO) was removed from the
orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the position. respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office
judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations
irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the
mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, duties of their positions. both parties were ordered to submit
inadequately, or selectively". Respondent’s obstinate refusal to position papers. Complainant filed hers, but respondent, despite
comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw grant, on his motion, of extension of time, did not file any position
in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s paper.
lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.
Ruling:
Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of Court of Cavite, Imus, and Cavite. The trial court issued an order on
the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial February 27, 1996 directing the Register of Deeds of the Province of
institution. Respondent's conduct indicates a high degree of Cavite to annotate at the back of certain certificates of title a notice
irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a of lis pendens. Before the Register of Deeds of the Province of
mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, Cavite could comply with said order, the defendant Spouses
inadequately, or selectively". Respondent's obstinate refusal to Alvaran, filed a motion to cancel lis pendens. On July 19, 1996,
comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw petitioner, the newly appointed counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders,
in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court's Inc., filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens. On
lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof. August 16, 1996, the motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by
the court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
opposed by the defendants. On November 5, 1996, petitioner filed
respondent's deference is underscored by the fact that willful
an Urgent Motion to Resolve, and on November 6, 1996, filed a
disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for
Rejoinder to Opposition and Motion for Contempt of Court. During
contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver
the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were present
responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold
together with one (1) operating a video camera who was taking
the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.
pictures of the proceedings of the case while counsel, Atty. Rexie
The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended
Efren Bugaring was making manifestation to the effect that he was
from the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of
ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to
Professional Responsibility, he having been found to have received
cite (in contempt of court) the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite,
an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had
Diosdado Concepcion.
filed a case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that
respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe penalty this The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he
time is thus called for. did not cause the appearance of the cameraman to take pictures;
however, he admitted that they came from a function, and that was
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for
the reason why the cameraman was in tow with him and the
two years from the practice of law
plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the flimsy explanation given, the counsel
Bugaring and RBBI v. Hon. Espanol sent out the cameraman after the Court took exception to the fact
that although the proceedings are open to the public and that it
FACTS: being a court of record and since its permission was not sought,
On December 5, 1996, an incident subject of the petition occurred such situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court. When the
during a hearing for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested that
before respondent Judge Dolores S. Español of the Regional Trial he needed the services of counsel and right then and there
appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to present him, the case was ISSUE/S: WON the appellate court committed error in affirming the
allowed to be called again. On the second call, Atty. Burgaring assailed order of the trial court
started to insist that he be allowed to mark and present his
HELD: Yes. The appellate court committed error in the affirmation
documentary evidence in spite of the fact that Atty. Barzaga was
of the trial court order
still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written pleading for
his client, considering that the Motion has so many ramifications RATIO: Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow
and the issues are complicated. counsel who at the time he was making representations in behalf of
the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to
not allowed to further put a word in edgewise is violative of Canon
mark his documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact
8 of the Code of Professional Ethics which obliges a lawyer to
he was already perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
not yet finished with his manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to
professional colleagues. Indeed, the conduct of petitioner in
disregard orderly procedure, the Court directed him to listen and
persisting to have his documentary evidence marked to the extent
wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly proceeding. While
of interrupting the opposing counsel and the court showed
claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt
disrespect to said counsel and the court, was defiant of the court's
like doing so. Thus, the Court declared him out of order, at which
system for an orderly proceeding, and obstructed the
point, Atty. Bugaring flared up the uttered words insulting the
administration of justice. The power to punish for contempt is
Court; such as: 'that he knows better than the latter as he has won
inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in
all his cases of certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows
judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders,
better the Rules of Court; that he was going to move for the
and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due
inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being antagonistic to
administrative of justice.
his client,' and other invectives were hurled to the discredit of the
Court. Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct Sambajon et al v. Atty. Suing
contempt and order the Court's sheriff to arrest and place him
under detention. To clear his name in the legal circle and the Complainants have sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing
general public, petitioner filed a petition before the Court of (respondent) on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of
Appeals praying for the annulment of the Order. Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.[2]

The Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous labor case in which the
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing held on December 5, Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel of their employer Microplast, Inc. A
1996, it was obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant, at judgment in favor of them was rendered by the Labor Arbiter and a
times impertinent, and too argumentative, to the extent of being writ of execution was issued against Microplast, Inc.
disrespectful, annoying and sarcastic towards the court.
Four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver client with diligence by adopting that norm of practice expected of
and Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to before the men of good intentions. He thus owes entire devotion to the
Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the interest of his client, warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of
considerations therefor. They subsequently filed an administrative his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill, and ability to
complaint alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with his ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from him, save by
clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, ―frustrated‖ the implementation the rules of law legally applied. It is axiomatic in the practice of law
of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the that the price of success is eternal diligence to the cause of the
spurious documents. A Complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. client.
Jose A. Suing on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of
As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility was also
administration of justice. He is an instrument to advance its cause.
filed.
Any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the
During the administrative hearings before the IBP Commissioner, it administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While the
was apparent that Atty. Suing was coaching his client to prevent Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings therein
himself from being incriminated. It was also revealed that the are nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary
Release Waiver and Quitclaims allegedly signed were not the same action being in reality an investigation by the Court into
documents originally presented to the employees to be signed. the misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Suing is an act

arguably violative of the Lawyers’ Code of Ethics

HELD: Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of negligence and gross

misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of Six (6) Months

The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence

(exactissima diligentia) or that ―extreme measure of care and
caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use
for securing and preserving their rights. All that is required is
ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of
a bonus pater familias.

Diligence is ―the attention and care required of a person in a given

situation and is the opposite of negligence.‖ A lawyer serves his
CANON 13 the ground that the new counsel for the defendant, Atty. Mariano
C. Sikat, was his former associate. Judge Masaquel, however,
Austria v. Masaquel
rejected the request because, according to him, the reason for the
FACTS: request of his inhibition is not one of the grounds for
disqualification of a judge provided for in the Rules of Court.
Respondent Judge Masaquel rendered a decision declaring the
plaintiffs (one of them is Domingo Austria) the owners of the three Judge called Domingo Austria, and inquired from the latter if it was
parcels of land in question located at San Carlos and Bayambang in true that he asked his lawyer Atty. Macaraeg to approach the Judge
the province of Pangasinan. Pedro Bravo was ordered to vacate the in chambers and to ask him to disqualify himself from trying this
lands and pay the plaintiffs damages only with respect to the land case because defendant's lawyer, Atty. Sicat was formerly
located at Bayambang. The plaintiffs filed a motion for the associated with the said Judge. Austria was also asked if he has lost
immediate execution of the judgment — which motion was granted faith in the sense of fairness and justice of the Presiding Judge of
by respondent Judge Masaquel and, upon the plaintiffs' having this Court simply because of Judge Masaquel‘s former association
posted a surety bond in the sum of P2,000.00, the sheriff placed with the defendant's lawyer. Domingo Austria answered both in the
them in possession of the lands located at San Carlos. Atty. Mariano affirmative. Judge Masaquel declared said plaintiff Domingo Austria
C. Sicat, a former assistant or associate of Judge Masaquel, when in direct contempt of court and he was ordered to pay a fine of
the latter was still in the practice of law before his appointment to P50.00. Petitioner Domingo Austria, accordingly, paid the fine of
the bench, entered his appearance as the new counsel for P50.00 under protest. He filed this instant petition for certiorari
defendant Pedro Bravo. before this Court.

Through Atty. Sicat, Bravo then filed a supersedeas bond to stay the ISSUE/S: WON Domingo Austria should be held in direct contempt
execution of the judgment, which was later on granted by Judge of court.
Masaquel. Austria had asked for the appointment of a receiver over
HELD: No. Austria is not guilty of direct contempt of court.
the parcel of land located at Bayambang, which prayer was granted
by Judge Masaquel, but upon the filing of a bond by Bravo for the RATIO:
non-appointment of a receiver, the order receivership was set
When the petitioner requested respondent Judge to inhibit himself
aside. Pending the approval of the defendant's amended record on
from further trying the case upon the ground that the counsel for
appeal, Atty. Sicat filed a motion for new trial. Judge Masaquel
the opposite party was the former associate of the respondent
granted the said motion. The hearing on the retrial was finally set.
Judge, petitioner did so because he was impelled by a justifiable
Before the opening of the court's session, Atty. Daniel Macaraeg,
apprehension which can occur in the mind of a litigant who sees
counsel for Austria and his co-plaintiffs, saw Judge Masaquel in his
what seems to be an advantage on the part of his adversary; and
chamber and verbally transmitted to him the request of Austria that
that the petitioner made his request in a manner that was not
he (the Judge) inhibit himself from further hearing the case upon
disrespectful, much less insulting or offensive to the respondent Gallo v. Cordero
Judge or to the court.
Martelino v. Alejandro
The respondent Judge had decided the case in favor of petitioner
FACTS:
and his co-plaintiffs, and that upon plaintiffs' timely motion and
filing of bond they were already placed in possession of the lands in This case presents another aspect of the court-martial proceedings
question pending appeal. It was when Atty. Sicat took over as new against the petitioner, Major Eduardo Martelino, alias Abdul Latif
counsel for defendant that the latter was given back the properties, Martelino, of the AFP, and the officers and men under him, for
upon a motion to stay the execution of the judgment which was violation of the Articles of War, as a result of the alleged shooting of
filed by said counsel and was granted by respondent Judge over the some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando training on the
opposition of petitioner's counsel. Again, when the same counsel island of Corregidor. At the hearing, petitioner Martelino sought the
for defendant filed a motion for a new trial, said motion was disqualification of the President of the general court-martial,
granted by respondent Judge in spite of the vigorous objection of following the latter's admission that he read newspaper stories of
counsel for the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs. the Corregidor incident which had come to be referred to as the
"Corregidor massacre". The petitioner's counsel referred to a news
And then the petitioner became aware of the fact that his
item appearing in the July 29, 1969 issue of the Daily Mirror and
adversary, the defendant Pedro Bravo, had been boasting in San
cited other news reports to the effect that "coffins are being
Carlos that he was sure to win his case because of his new lawyer.
prepared for the President (of the Philippines) in Jolo," that
While it is true that respondent Judge may not be compelled to
according to Senator Aquino "massacre victims were given sea
disqualify himself, the fact that Atty. Sicat, admittedly his former
burial," and that Senator Magsaysay, opposition Vice President
associate, was counsel for a party in the case being tried by him,
candidate, had gone to Corregidor and "found bullet shells."
may constitute a just or valid reason for him to voluntarily inhibit
himself from hearing the case on a retrial, if he so decides, pursuant In addition the petitioners cite in this Court a Manila Times editorial
to the provision of the second paragraph of Section 1 of the said of August 26, 1969 which states that "The Jabidah [code name of
Rule 137. the training operations] issue was bound to come up in the course
of the election campaign. The opposition could not possibly ignore
Due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and
an issue that is heavily loaded against the administration."
disinterested tribunal, and that every litigant is entitled to nothing
less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Moreover, The petitioners argue that the case had received such an amount of
second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of publicity in the press and other news media and in fact was being
doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its exploited for political purposes in connection with the presidential
fairness and the integrity of the Judge. election as to imperil his right to a fair trial. The petitioners further
allege that the adverse publicity given in the mass media to the
Corregidor incident, coupled with the fact that it became an issue the ground of prejudicial publicity. In the earlier case of Shepherd v.
against the administration in the 1969 elections, was such as to Florida, which involved elements of publicity, the reversal of the
unduly influence the members of the court-martial. In support of conviction was based solely on racial discrimination in the selection
their contention they invoke the rulings of the United States of the jury, "It is hard to imagine a more prejudicial influence than a
Supreme Court in Irvin v. Dowd, Rideau vs. Louisiana, Estes v. Texas, press release by the officer of the court charged with defendants'
and Shepard v. Maxwell. custody stating that they had confessed, and here just such a
statement unsworn to, unseen, uncross-examined and
In their answer, the respondents as members of the general court-
uncontradicted, was conveyed by the press to the jury.
martial assert that despite the publicity which the case had
received, no proof has been presented showing that the court- In Rideau, the petitioner, suspect in the robbery of a bank and in the
martial's president's fairness and impartiality have been impaired. kidnapping of three of its employees, and in the killing of one of
them, was similarly given "trial by publicity." Thus, the day after his
ISSUE/S: WON the publicity given to the case against the petitioners
arrest, a moving picture film was taken of him in an "interview" with
was such as to prejudice their right to a fair trial.
the sheriff. The "interview," consisted of interrogation by the sheriff
HELD: and admission by Rideau that he had perpetrated the bank robbery,
kidnapping and murder. The interview was seen and heard on
No. The spate of publicity did not focus on the guilt of the television by 24,000 people. His lawyers promptly moved for a
petitioners. change of venue but their motion was denied and Rideau was
RATIO: convicted and sentenced to death to the spectacle of Rideau
personally confessing in detail to the crimes with which he was later
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media to be charged.
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party. In the third case, Estes, the Court voided a televised criminal trial for
being inherently a denial of due process. The state ... says that the
An examination of the cases cited, however, will show that they are use of television in the instant case was "without injustice to the
widely disparate from this case in a fundamental sense. In Irvin, for person immediately concerned,". In Sheppard, the celebrated
instance, the Supreme Court found that shortly after the murder case of Sam Sheppard, who was accused of the murder of
petitioner's arrest in connection with six murders committed, the his wife Marilyn, the newsmen took over practically the entire
prosecutor and police officials issued press releases stating that the courtroom.
petitioner had confessed to the six murders and that "a barrage of
newspaper headlines articles, cartoons and pictures was unleashed The Court held that from the unfair and prejudicial publicity from
against him during the six or seven months preceding his trial." Irvin the minds of the jurors, the trial courts must take strong measures
marks the first time a state conviction was struck down solely on to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused. Of
course, there is nothing that proscribes the press from reporting The atmosphere has since been cleared and the publicity
events that transpire in the courtroom. But where there is a surrounding the Corregidor incident has so far abated that the court
reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent believes that the trial may now be resumed in tranquility.
a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat
Cruz v. Salva
abates, or transfer it to another county not so permeated with
publicity. FACTS:
If publicity during the proceeding threatens the fairness of the trial, Manuel Monroy was killed in 1953 and a number of persons were
a new trial should be ordered. In the case at bar, the spate of accused of such killing. These persons were found guilty sentenced
publicity did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on to the penalty of death. They all appealed. Pending the appeal,
the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a President Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case which
"massacre" of Muslim trainees. If there was a "trial by newspaper" was conducted by the intelligence agents of the Philippine
at all, it was not of the petitioners but of the Government. Absent Constabulary and investigators of Malacanang. The result of the
here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the reinvestigation also points to the convicted persons as the real
accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected killers of Monroy. The counsel of the defendants wrote to Fiscal
with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to control the release Salva to conduct a reinvestigation of the case on the basis of the
of information or to remove the trial to another venue or to affidavits and confessions obtained by the investigator of
postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have Malacanang which was made available to him.
subsided.
Salva formed a committee composed of himself as the chairman
Indeed, the trial of the petitioners was being held under and two assistant city attorneys. Salva subpoenaed Cruz to appear
circumstances which did not permit the observance of those at his office for the investigation. Atty. Baizas, counsel of Cruz,
imperative decencies of procedure which have come to be questioned the jurisdiction of the committee to conduct the
identified with due process. At all events, even granting the investigation considering that the case was pending appeal in SC.
existence of "massive" and "prejudicial" publicity, since the Salva contended that he subpoenaed Cruz et al because of their
petitioners here do not contend that the respondents have been request to do so and that were it not for his request, he would not
unduly influenced but simply that they might be by the "barrage" of conduct the investigation. Although Cruz denied having made such
publicity, the Court thinks that the suspension of the court-martial request, the SC believed that he indeed made a request of
proceedings has accomplished the purpose sought by the reinvestigation.
petitioners' challenge for cause, by postponing the trial of the
petitioner until calmer times have returned. However, the Supreme Court was interested in the manner to which
the investigation headed by Salva was conducted. The investigation
was made not in Salva‘s office but in the session hall of the
Municipal Trial Court to accommodate a big crowd that wanted to Ruling:
witness the proceeding, including members of the press.
Salva was publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled for
Microphones were installed. There were reporters everywhere and
and wide publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and
photographers were busy taking pictures.
allowed in connection with his investigation, which the Court
ISSUE: W/N Salva violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional considered and found to be contempt of court.
Responsibility.
Salva could well have conducted the investigation in his office,
HELD: Yes. The way Salva conducted the investigation is quietly, unobtrusively and without much fanfare, much less
reprehensible. He publicized and sensationalized the case. He publicity. He committed what was regarded a grievous error and
committed what was regard a grievous error and poor judgment. poor judgment for which the Court failed to find any excuse or
His actuations went well beyond the bounds of prudence, satisfactory explanation. His actuations went well beyond the
discretion, and good taste. Salva was publicly reprehended and bounds of prudence, discretion and good taste.
censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism
It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case
he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation
is being investigated by the authorities, even when it is tried in
which is considered and found to be contempt of court.
court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even
Complaint: encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending
consideration by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes
Cruz filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this Court, in the interest of
injunction against Salva, in his capacity as City Fiscal, to restrain the justice, is constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a
latter from continuing with the preliminary investigation he was deterrent against its repetition by meting an appropriate
conducting, as the same was conducted not in Salva’s office, but in disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one liable.
the session hall of the Municipal Court evidently to accommodate
the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding, including Bumanlag v. Bumanlag
members of the press; a number of microphones were also
FACTS
installed, reporters were everywhere and photographers were busy
taking pictures. Atty Bumanlag filed his petition with the President by the fact that
his motions for reconsideration "were only denied by the Clerk of
Defense:
Court without any comment whatsoever".
The purpose of the investigation was only to acquaint himself with
The petition is about promulgating a decree that the order of
and evaluate the evidence involved in the affidavits and confessions
suspension by the Supreme Court to be set aside and allow him to
of witnesses by questioning them.
become an active member of the New Society.
The Court per its Resolution of June 16, 1975 directed the Clerk of 13.03- A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another
Court "to furnish the Office of the President through Assistant branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
Executive Secretary Zamora with copies of the Court's decision of proccedings.
September 24, 1973 wherein the Court in a spirit of liberality by
In the Court's decision of September 24, 1973, the Court found respondent
majority vote imposed a lesser penalty of two-year suspension
guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension from the
instead of disbarment (as voted by a minority composed of Justices practice of law for a period of two (2) years. Respondent filed several
Castro and Makasiar) and of the Court's resolutions of November motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied per the Court's
20, 1973 and December 19, 1973 denying for lack of merit Resolutions of November 20, 1973, December 19, 1973, January 9, 1974
respondent's two motions for reconsideration dated October 18, and October 30, 1974.
1973 and December 12, 1973and further resolved "to require
On March 31, 1975, the Clerk of Court received a 1st Indorsement dated
respondent to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why he
February 21, 1975 from then Assistant Executive Secretary Ronaldo B.
should not be subjected to further disciplinary action for making Zamora "requesting comment and/or appropriate action" on the therewith
false statements and misrepresentations in his petition to the enclosed petition of respondent to the President of the Philippines that he
President that he has been allegedly deprived of due process of law "promulgate(s) a decree that the order of suspension by the Supreme
contrary to the facts of record as stated in the Court's decision, and Court be set aside and that your humble self be allowed to become an
for gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in asking the active member of the New Society".
President to set aside by decree this Court's decision imposing upon
The Court per its Resolution of June 16, 1975 directed the Clerk of Court
him two-year suspension from the practice of law". "to furnish the Office of the President through Assistant Executive
ISSUE Secretary Zamora with copies of the Court's decision of September 24,
1973 wherein the Court in a spirit of liberality by majority vote imposed a
Whether or not the Atty. Bumanlag should not be subjected to
lesser penalty of two-year suspension instead of disbarment (as voted by a
further disciplinary action for making false statements and
minority composed of Justices Castro and Makasiar) and of the Court's
misrepresentations in his petition to the President that he has been resolutions of November 20, 1973 and December 19, 1973 denying for lack
allegedly of merit respondent's two motions for reconsideration dated October 18,
1973 and December 12, 1973"; and further resolved "to require
HELD
respondent to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why he should
The respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for gross not be subjected to further disciplinary action for making false statements
ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in having asked the and misrepresentations in his petition to the President that he has been
President to set aside by decree the Court's decision which allegedly deprived of due process of law contrary to the facts of record as
stated in the Court's decision, and for gross ignorance of the law and of the
suspended him for two years from the practice of law, with warning
Constitution in asking the President to set aside by decree this Court's
that the commission of any transgression in the future of his oath
decision imposing upon him two-year suspension from the practice of
and duties as a member of the bar will be severely dealt with. Rule law".
In a 2nd Indorserment of June 18, 1975 and received by the Clerk of Court Clerk of Court who is duly authorized to do so. With the thousands of
on the same day, then Assistant Executive Secretary Zamora forwarded resolutions approved monthly by the Court, it would unduly tax the time
respondent's letter of the same date to the President stating that "(T)he and attention of the Chief Justice and members of the Court to the
undersigned by now (has) come to realize that I made a big mistake by prejudice of the administration of justice if all such papers, other than
making said letter to you, Your Excellency, because the Honorable decisions, could be released only upon their own signatures.
Supreme Court may believe that I may be challenging the decision which is
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for gross
already final and executory and as such do not observe the doctrine of
ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in having asked the President
protocol of separation of power(s)", and withdrawing and asking the
to set aside by decree the Court's decision which suspended him for two
President to disregard his first letter.
years from the practice of law, with warning that the commission of any
Respondent in his Explanation of July 23, 1975 cited the fact that he had transgression in the future of his oath and duties as a member of the bar
"immediately" withdrawn his letter asking for the President's intervention will be severely dealt with.
and that "lately, however, he has fully realized that the Chief Executive is
SO ORDERED.
bereft (of) any authority to set aside or modify the decision of this
Honorable Supreme Court" and "with folded hands begs and asks an Makasiar, Muñoz-Palma, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur.
apology from the members of this Honorable Court, with the full assurance
that nothing of this sort will be repeated by him in the future."

Respondent served his two-year suspension, as duly noted in the Court's Rule 13.03- A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another
Resolution of November 7, 1975. Since respondent has apologized for his branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
"big mistake" and now appreciates that under the fundamental principle of proccedings.
separation of powers enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, a
decision of this Court may not be set aside by the President, the Court is
disposed to view his misconduct and/or ignorance with liberality and will
administer a reprimand with warning of severe action on any future
transgressions, considering respondent's unenviable record.

A final word is called for on respondent's statement in his Explanation

inferring that he was led to file his petition with the President by the fact
that his motions for reconsideration "were only denied by the Clerk of
Court without any comment whatsoever". As the Court has had occasion
to state in People vs. Catolico * and earlier cases, this remark of

respondent exposes his lack of appreciation or disregard of the time-

honored usage of the Court that minute resolutions, summons and
processes of the Court, upon being duly adopted and recorded are
transmitted to the interested parties by and upon the signature of the