Canon 10 1. Director of Lands v. Adorable
regarding forum-shopping. Atty. Jimenez then appealed it before the CA, but to no avail.
Facts:
Issue:
Adorable files a land claim before the Director of Lands. The case went to the CA for appeal. However, the war broke out. After the war, Adorable files a reconstitution case before the SC believing that the case was not resolved by the CA. Atty. Zamora, counsel of the appellee of the case informed the Court that the case was already settled by the CA in favor of Adorable.
WON the action of Atty. Jimenez is proper.
Issue: WON the conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper. Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper. The Court in this case praised Atty. Zamora’s conduct as the highest highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes of the deserving member of the bar. Hence, the act of Atty. Zamora is proper. 2. Carlet v. CA and Zarate Facts: Carlet who is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Sevillo through Atty. Jimenez files before the Trial Court an action for reconvenyance of property of Sevillo. Zarate then moved to dismiss such action invoking res judicata since it was the same facts that had been settled by the trial court, CA and SC. The action was then dismissed by the Trial Court and ordered Atty. Jimenez
Held: No. The action of Atty. Jimenez is not proper. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court”. In the case at bar, the action of Atty Jimenez of filing a reconveyance case despite his knowledge that there is finality of the case shows that he does not have good faith towards the court. Hence, his conduct is not proper. 3. Allied Bank v. CA and Galanida Facts: Galanida was terminated from Allied Bank due to his refusal to be transferred to other branch. Hence, he filed an action before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter then rendered a decision in Galanida’s favor citing the Dosch case, lifted from the syllabus of the SCRA. Issue: WON the conduct of the labor arbiter is proper. Held: No. The conduct of the labor arbiter is not proper. Rule 10.02 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. In the case at bar, the fact that the labor arbiter quoted in their decision a syllabus from the SCRA is an act of misrepresenting the decision of the Supreme Court since such syllabus is not part of the decision, instead a note of the author of such report. Hence, such conduct is improper.
Hence, the conduct of said counsel does not deserve a disciplinary action. 5. Munoz v. CA and Sutton Facts: Sutton made some misrepresentations in the facts of the case where she seeks a review before the SC. Issue:
4. Del Rosario v. Chingcuanco and Imperio
WON such conduct deserves disciplinary action.
Facts:
Held:
The CAR rendered a decision evicting Del Rosario from the land which he leases from Imperio. However, the former refused to vacate the land since the latter does not want to refund him of the improvement he had done to the property. Del Rosario, further, filed a motion before the SC to stay such execution. Due this, Imperio filed a petition to cite Del Rosario’s counsel in contempt since said counsel quoted a non-existing SC decision. However, it was discovered that such belief was brought by a mere typographical error.
Yes.The conduct of Atty. Sutton deserves disciplinary action. Under the Canon 10 of the CPR, a lawyer shall owes candor and honesty to the court. In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Sutton made false facts in her pleading for review in SC is a clear manifestation that she lacks candor for the court. Hence, her conduct warrants a disciplinary action. 6. Adez Realty v. CA Facts:
Issue: WON the conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel deserves a disciplinary action. Held: No. The conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel does not deserve a disciplinary action. In this case, the Court ruled that the name of the case was given correctly and there was clearly no deception on the part of the counsel.
Atty. Dacanay made some intercalation in the decision of the Court of Appeals when he appealed before the SC. Due this, the Court had suspended him indefinitely. Dacanay argued that it was his client who made the intercalation and later on he admitted that his secretary made the intercalation on the document. Issue: WON the conduct of Dacanay warrants a suspension.
Held: Yes. The conduct of Dacanay warrants suspension. Rule 10.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of the paper, language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority. In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Dacanay made the intercalation on the CA decision makes him liable under such rule. Hence, his conduct warrants a disciplinary action. 7. The Insurance Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Facts: The Employees Assoc. Files before the CIR a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Company. The CIR then dismissed such complaint. In its decision, CIR Judge Martinez misquoted a SC decision in the case of Lopez Sr v. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass’n: (1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the original; (2) Martinez used “For it is settled that...”; the original reads, “For it must be remembered...” (3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is actually part of the immediately succeeding paragraph in the SC decision. In the respondents’ brief, counsels for respondents quoted the CIR’s decision Issue:
Whether or not the Judge and the respondent’s counsel are liable for contempt. Held:
No. The Judge and the respondent’s counsel are not liable for contempt. In citing SC’s decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. This is because “only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctr ines in this jurisdiction.” (Miranda v. Imperial). However, there was good faith in both the Judge and the respondent’s counsel, hence their action is not liable for contempt.
