•
Ramon Galang •
•
•
•
The case is one of the consolidated cases in In re Lanuevo. Ramon E. Galang passed the 1971 bar examination but his exam papers ere sub!ected to unauthori"ed re#correction and re#evaluation b$ % examiners. &n investigation investigation b$ the '(I revealed that Ramon )Roman*Rom$+ as o a student of ,chool of La of -L/0 that in ,ept 2 19%92 he as o charged ith the crime of slight ph$sical in!uries),3I+ of another student of the same universit$0 that in a 1974 hearing2 he as o confronted ith this information but declared he does not remember being charged ith the same 5ictim as summoned and narrated the case and identified Galang as the ver$ same person charged ith ,3I in that case &n administrative administrative proceeding proceeding as filed ed for his disbarment along ith (ar 6onfidant Lanuevo.
•
hether or not Galang must be stric8en off in the roll of attorne$s for concealing his case of ,3I.
•
•
•
•
es. /nder Rule 1:72 ,ec : ever$ applicant is dut$ bound to la$ before the 6ourt all his involvement in an$ criminal case2 pending or otherise terminated2 to enable the 6ourt to full$ ascertain or determine applicant;s moral character. &s to hat crime me involves involves moral turpitude2 is for the ,upreme 6ourt to determine. uitted2 convicted or the case dismissed or is still pending = becomes more compelling. In 19?4 and 19?@2 hen Galang too8 the (ar for the second and third time2 respectivel$2 the application form provided b$ the 6ourt for use of applicants alread$ re>uired the applicant to declare under oath that Ahe has not been accused of2 indicted for or convicted b$ an$ court or tribunal of an$ offense involving moral turpitude0 and that there is no pending case of that nature against him.A ($ 19??2 hen Galang too8 the (ar examinations for the fourth time2 the application form prepared b$ the 6ourt for use of applicants re>uired the applicant to reveal all his criminal cases hether involving moral turpitude or not. et2 Galang continued to intentionall$ ithhold or conceal from the 6ourt his criminal case of slight ph$sical in!uries hich as then and until no is pending in the 6it$ 6ourt of -anila0 and thereafter repeatedl$ omitted to ma8e mention of the same in his
•
•
Biao vs. -artine"
•
•
•
•
Lilian F. 5illasanta
•
&fter successfull$ successfull$ passing passing the corresponding examinations held in 19%42 Telesforo &. Biao as admitted to the (ar. &bout to $ears $ears later2 ,everino -artine" -artine" charged him ith having falsel$ represented in his application for such (ar examination2 that he had the re>uisite academic >ualificationsC )a+ Biao did not complete his o high school training0 and )b+ Biao never attended o uisumbing 6ollege2 and never obtained his &.&. diploma therefrom = hich contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination2 and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the Are>uired pre#legal educationA. educationA. &nsering this official report and complaint2 Telesforo &. Biao2 practicall$ admits the first chargeC but he claims that although he had left high school in his third $ear2 he entered the service of the /.,. &rm$2 passed the General 6lassification Test given therein2 hich )according to him+ is e>uivalent to a high school diploma2 and upon his return to civilian life2 the educational authorities considered his arm$ service as the e>uivalent of 4rd and @th $ear high school. The complaint see8s to dis>ualif$ the respondent2 a 19%@ successful bar
•
hether or not BiaoDs claim ould prosper
•
•
•
hether or not the respondent is immoral
•
applications applications to ta8e the (ar examinations in 19?72 19?9 and 1971. That the concealment of an attorne$ in his application to ta8e the (ar examinations of the fact that he had been charged ith2 or indicted for2 an alleged crime2 is a ground for revocation of his license to practice la is ell = settled. 'o. Biao as not >ualified to ta8e the bar examinations0 but due to his false representations2 he as alloed to ta8e it2 luc8il$ passed it2 and as thereafter admitted to the (ar. ,uch admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be2 and is hereb$ revo8ed. The fact that he hurdled the (ar examinations is immaterial. 3assing such examinations is not the only >ualification >ualification to become an attorne$#at#la0 attorne$#at#la0 ta8ing the prescribed courses of legal stud$ in the regular manner is equally essential The 6ler8 is2 therefore2 ordered to stri8e from the roll of attorne$s2 the name of Telesforo &. Biao. &nd the latter latter is re>uired to to return his la$er;s diploma ithin thirt$ da$s.
This 6ourt is of the opinion that the respondent is immoral.
•
•
•
•
ReC 3etition to ta8e La$erDs ath b$ &rthur 6uevas
•
•
candidate2 from being admitted to the bar. n &pril 1?2 19492 the respondent as married to Ri"alina E. 5alde" in Ri"al2 'ueva Eci!a. n or before -arch 2 19%12 he courted the complainant ho fell in love ith him. To have carnal 8noledge of her2 the respondent procured the preparation of a fa8e marriage contract hich as then a blan8 document. uired the production of a marriage license because of the civil marriage contract shon to him. &fter the ceremon$ ceremon$ in &parri2 &parri2 the couple couple returned to -anila as husband and ife and lived ith some friends. The complainant complainant then discovered that the respondent as previousl$ married to someone else0 hereupon2 she filed the criminal action for a violation of &rticle 4% of the Revised 3enal 6ode in the 6ourt of First Instance of 6aga$an and the present complaint for immoralit$ in this court. &rthur -. 6uevas2 6uevas2 Hr.2 passed the 199? (ar Examinations.
•
•
hether or not petitioner 6uevas has the moral fitness re>uired to ta8e the la$erDs oath
•
•
made moc8er$ of marriage hich is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignit$. uired b$ the Rules of 6ourt2 the respondent is hereb$ declared dis>ualified from being admitted to the bar.
3etitioner is alloed to ta8e the L&ERD, &T< and sign the RLL F &TTR'E,. The 6ourt shares the sentiment of &tt$. 6amaligan2 father of ha"ing victim Raul 6amaligan2 and condoles ith the untimel$ death of a son ho is expected to become a la$er and succeed his father.
•
•
Imprudence Resulting In
•
•
•
•
•
,amaniego vs. Ferrer
•
•
•
6omplaint of -ar!orie F. ,amaniego against respondent &tt$. &ndre 5. Ferrer for immoralit$2 abandonment and illful refusal to give support to their daughter2 filed before the Integrated (ar of the 3hilippines Earl$ in 199?2 -s. ,amaniego as referred to &tt$. Ferrer as a potential client. &tt$. Ferrer agreed to handle her cases and soon their la$er#client la$er#client relationship became intimate. -s. ,amaniego said &tt$. Ferrer courted her and she fell in love ith him.
•
hether or not &tt$. Ferrer is guilt$ of gross immoralit$
•
•
•
In his comment submitted to the 6ourt2 &tt$. 6amaligan submits petitionerDs plea to be admitted to the membershop to the 3hilippine (ar2 to the sound and !udicious discretion of the 6ourt. The deliberate participation of 6uevas in the senseless beating of a helpless neoph$te hich resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does not possess the moral fitness re>uired for admission to the (ar.
•
•
•
•
•
•
&rnobit vs. &rnobit
•
•
•
together as Ahusband and ifeA from 199? to 19972 and on -arch 1:2 19972 their daughter as born. The affair ended in : and since then he failed to give support to their daughter. (efore the I(3 6ommission on (ar Biscipline2 -s. ,amaniego presented their daughter;s birth and baptismal certificates2 and the photographs ta8en during the baptism. ,he testified that she 8ne that &tt$. Ferrer as in a relationship but did not thin8 he as alread$ married. ,he also testified that she as illing to compromise2 but he failed to pa$ for their daughter;s education as agreed upon. &tt$. Ferrer refused to appear during the hearing since he did not ant to see -s. ,amaniego. In his position paper2 &tt$. Ferrer manifested his illingness to support their daughter. uainted ith his ife and children.
6onfidant2 SUSPEND him from the practice of la for six )?+ months effective upon notice hereof2 ith WARNING that the same or similar act in the future ill be dealt ith more severel$.
•
hether or not leaving the con!ugal home and cohabiting ith a married oman a ground for disbarment
•
es. &s officers of the court2 la$ers must not onl$ in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance ith the highest moral standards of the communit$. & member of the bar and an officer of the court is not onl$ re>uired to refrain from adulterous relationships or 8eeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandali"ing the public b$ creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards.
cohabited ith (enita. Instead2 he alleged that it as Rebecca ho as the cause of their separation due to her fre>uent travels around the countr$ ithout his consent and thereb$ neglecting her obligations toard her famil$.
•
•
•
,t. Louis /niv vs. Bela 6ru"
•
& disbarment case filed b$ the Facult$ members and ,taff of the ,aint Louis /niversit$#Laborator$
•
-a$ a pending case constitutes facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct b$ the respondent
•
•
•
/ndoubtedl$2 respondentDs act of leaving his ife and 1: children to cohabit and have children ith another oman constitutes grossl$ immoral conduct. &nd to add insult to in!ur$2 there seems to be little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his liaison ith the other oman.&s e have alread$ ruled2 disbarment is arranted against a la$er ho abandons his laful ife to maintain an illicit relationship ith another oman ho had borne him a child. ualifications re>uired b$ la. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorne$ is to remove from the profession those unfit to be entrusted ith the duties and responsibilities thereb$ protecting the public and those charged with the administration of justice2 rather than to punish an attorne$. 6ontracting a second marriage despite existence of first marriage is a violation of the continuous possession of good moral character as a re>uirement to the en!o$ment of the privilege of la practice. The 6ourt has characteri"ed a la$erDs act of notari"ing documents ithout the re>uisite commission to do so as reprehensible2 constituting as it does not onl$ malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public documents.M 'otari"ation
•
•
•
/lep vs. Legal 6linic2 Inc
In 19@2 The Legal 6linic as formed b$ &tt$. Rogelio 'ogales. Its aim2 according to 'ogales as to move toard speciali"ation and to cater to clients ho cannot afford the services of big la firms. 'o2 &tt$. -auricio /lep filed a complaint against The Legal 6linic because of the latterDs advertisements hich contain the folloingC ,E6RET -&RRI&GE 3%?. for a valid marriage. Info on BI5R6E. &(,E'6E. &''/L-E'T. 5I,&. Tuota Res. O ,pecial RetireeDs 5isa. Beclaration of &bsence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. &doption. •
•
hether or not The Legal 6linic is engaged in the practice of la0 hether such is alloed0 hether or not its advertisement ma$ be alloed.
•
of a private document converts the document into a public one ma8ing it admissible in court ithout further proof of its authenticit$. & notarial document is b$ la entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and2 for this reason2 notaries public must observe ith the utmost care the basic re>uirements in the performance of their duties. 3ending case does not constitute facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct b$ the respondent as these are still pending before the proper forums. &t such stages2 the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent. es2 The Legal 6linic is engaged in the practice of la hoever2 such practice is not alloed. The Legal 6linic is composed mainl$ of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems herein a client ma$ avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate underta8ings. -ost of these services are undoubtedl$ be$ond the domain of paralegals2 but rather2 are exclusive functions of la$ers engaged in the practice of la. /nder 3hilippine !urisdiction hoever2 the services being offered b$ Legal 6linic hich constitute practice of la cannot be performed b$ paralegals. nl$ a person dul$ admitted as a member of the bar and ho is in good and regular standing2 is entitled to practice la.
Investment in the 3hil. /,*Foreign 5isa for Filipina ,pouse*6hildren. 6all -arivic. T
•
•
•
•
•
6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$ provides that a la$er in ma8ing 8non his legal services shall use onl$ true2 honest2 fair2 dignified and ob!ective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the la$erDs advertisement of his talents. & la$er cannot2 ithout violating the ethics of his profession2 advertise his talents or s8ills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. F urther2 the advertisements of Legal 6linic seem to promote divorce2 secret marriage2 bigamous marriage2 and other circumventions of la hich their experts can facilitate. ,uch is highl$ reprehensible. The ,upreme 6ourt also noted hich forms of advertisement are alloed. The best advertising possible for a la$er is a ell# merited reputation for professional capacit$ and fidelit$ to trust2 hich must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as ell as to the communit$ has a a$ of publici"ing itself and catching public attention. That publicit$ is a normal b$#product of effective service hich is right and proper. & good and reputable la$er needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnif$ his success.
&dvertisement in a reputable la list /se of ordinar$ simple professional card Listing in a phone o director$ but ithout designation as to his speciali"ation 'o. The alleged fact that the person ho represented petitioner at the initial stage of the litigation2 i.e.2 the filing of an &nser and the pretrial proceedings2 turned out to be not a member of the (ar did not amount to a denial of petitioner;s da$ in court. It should be noted that in the subse>uent stages of the proceedings2 after the rendition of the !udgment b$ default2 petitioner as dul$ represented b$ bona fide members of the (ar in see8ing a reversal of the !udgment for being contrar$ to la and !urisprudence and the existence of valid2 legal and !ustifiable defenses. In other ords2 petitioner;s rights had been ampl$ protected in the proceedings before the trial and appellate courts as he as subse>uentl$ assisted b$ counsel. -oreover2 petitioner himself as at fault as the order of treatment as in default as predicated2 not onl$ on the alleged counsel;s failure to attend the pretrial conference on &pril ?2 197:2 but li8eise on his on failure to attend the same2 ithout !ustifiable reason. o
o
•
Guballa vs. 6aguioa
•
•
•
3etitioner is an operator of a public utilit$ vehicle hich as involved2 on ctober 12 19712 in an accident resulting to in!uries sustained b$ private respondent Bomingo Forte"a Hr. &s a conse>uence thereof2 a complaint for damages as filed b$ Forte"a against petitioner ith the 6ourt of First Instance of (ulacan (ecause petitioner and counsel failed to appear at the pretrial conference on &pril ?2 197:2 despite due notice2 petitioner as treated as in default and private respondent as alloed to present his evidence ex parte. & decision as thereafter rendered b$ the trial court in favor of private respondent Forte"a Hr. & -otion for Reconsideration as then filed b$ petitioner see8ing the lifting of the order of default2 the reopening of the case for the presentation of his evidence and the setting aside of the decision. ,aid -otion for Reconsideration as signed b$ 3onciano -ercado2 another member of the la firm. The same as denied b$ the loer 6ourt and petitioner appealed to the 6ourt of &ppeals assigning the folloing alleged errors2 to itC a. That the
•
hether or not a non# member of the (ar representing the petitioner ould amount to a denial of petitionerDs da$ in court.
•
•
•
•
•
c. &ard of damages in favor of plaintiff2 more particularl$ aard of moral damages is contrar$ to la0 and d. Befendant has valid2 legal o and !usticiable defenses. -otion for reconsideration as filed but as denied. &tt$. Isabelo 5.L. ,antos 112 filed a 3etition for Relief from Hudgment alleging his discover$ that Irineo . 5ida Hr.2 ho prepared his &nser to the 6omplaint is not a member of the 3hilippine (ar and that conse>uentl$2 his rights had not been ade>uatel$ protected and his properties are in danger of being confiscated and*or levied upon ithout due process of la. respondent Hudge denied the 3etition and directed the issuance of a rit of execution for the reasons that said 3etition is A. . a clear case of dilator$ tactic on the part of counsel for defendant# appellant ...A herein petitioner2 and2 that the grounds relied upon A. . . could have been ventilated in the appeal before the 6ourt of &ppeals ... A Respondent Hudge;s forthright denial of the 3etition for Relief to frustrate a dilator$ maneuver is ell#ta8en0 and this 3etition must be denied for lac8 of merit. The alleged fact that the person ho represented petitioner at the initial stage of the litigation2 i.e.2 the filing of an &nser and the pretrial proceedings2 turned out to be not a member of the (ar 6ipriano 6id O &ssociates2 counsel of Entila and Tena"as filed a notice of attorne$;s lien e>uivalent to 4P of the total bac8ages. Entila and Tena"as filed manifestation indicating their non#ob!ection to an aard of attorne$;s fees for :%P of their bac8ages uentin -uning filed a A3etition for the &ard of ,ervices RenderedA e>uivalent o
•
•
•
•
•
3&FL/ vs. (inalbagan Isabela ,ugar 6o.
•
•
•
•
-a$ a non#la$er recover attorne$;s fees for legal services rendered
•
•
'o. The aard of 1P to uintin -uning ho is not a la$er according to the order2 is sought to be voided in the present petition. La$er#client relationship is onl$ possible if one is a la$er. ,ince respondent -uning is not one2 he cannot establish an attorne$# client relationship ith Enri>ue
•
•
•
Five H Taxi vs. 'LR6
•
•
•
to :P of the bac8ages. pposed b$ 6ipriano 6id O &ssociates the ground that he is not a la$er. 6ourt of Industrial Relations aarded :%P of the bac8ages as compensation for professional services rendered in the case2 apportioned as follosC i. 6ipriano 1P o ii. uintin -uning 1P o iii. &tanacio 3acis %P o 3etitioners Five H Taxi and*or Huan ,. &rmamento filed this special civil action for certiorari to annul the decision 1 of respondent 'ational Labor Relations 6ommission )'LR6+ ordering petitioners to pa$ private respondents Bomingo -aldigan and Gilberto ,absalon their accumulated deposits and car ash pa$ments2 plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of promulgation of !udgment to the date of actual pa$ment2 and 1P of the total amount as and for attorne$;s fees. 3rivate respondents Bomingo -aldigan and Gilberto ,absalon ere hired b$ the petitioners as taxi drivers 2 and2 as such2 the$ or8ed for @ da$s ee8l$ on a :@# hour shifting schedule. &side from the dail$ Aboundar$A of 37. for air# conditioned taxi or 3@%. for non#air# conditioned taxi2 the$ ere also re>uired to pa$ 3:. for car ashing2 and to further ma8e a 31%. deposit to anser for an$ deficienc$ in their Aboundar$2A for ever$ actual or8ing da$. In less than @ months after -aldigan as hired as an extra driver b$ the petitioners2 he alread$ failed to report for or8 for un8non reasons. Later2 petitioners learned that he as or8ing for A-ine of GoldA Taxi 6ompan$. ith respect to ,absalon2 hile driving a taxicab of petitioners on ,eptember ?2 1942 he as held up b$ his armed passenger ho too8
•
•
hether or not 3ulia is entitled to attorne$ fees.
•
•
•
Entila and 5ictorino Tene"as or ith 3&FL/2 and he cannot2 therefore2 recover attorne$;s fees. 3ublic polic$ demands that legal or8 in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted onl$ to those possessing tested >ualifications2 for the ethics of the profession and for the protection of courts2 clients and the public. 'o. hile it ma$ be true that Guillermo <. 3ulia as the authori"ed representative of private respondents2 he as a non#la$er ho did not fall in either of the foregoing categories.
•
•
•
•
all his mone$ and thereafter stabbed him. uests of petitioners for him to report for or82 he adamantl$ refused. &fterards it as revealed that he as driving a taxi for A(ula8la8 6ompan$.A in 1992 -aldigan re>uested petitioners for the reimbursement of his dail$ cash deposits for : $ears2 but herein petitioners told him that not a single centavo as left of his deposits as these ere not even enough to cover the amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he as driving. This as allegedl$ the practice adopted b$ petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the repair of their taxicab units. hen -aldigan insisted on the refund of his deposit2 petitioners terminated his services. ,absalon2 on his part2 claimed that his termination from emplo$ment as effected hen he refused to pa$ for the ashing of his taxi seat covers. n 'ovember :72 19912 private respondents filed a complaint ith the -anila &rbitration ffice of the 'ational Labor Relations 6ommission charging petitioners ith illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. That complaint as dismissed2 the labor arbiter holding that it too8 private respondents to $ears to file the same and such unreasonable dela$
•
•
6ambali"a vs. 6ristobal# Tenorio
•
•
•
•
•
•
as not consistent ith the natural reaction of a person ho claimed to be un!ustl$ treated2 hence the filing of the case could be interpreted as a mere afterthought. n the last issue of attorne$;s fees or service fees for private respondents; authori"ed representative2 &rticle ::: of the Labor 6ode2 as amended b$ ,ection 4 of 3residential Becree 'o. 1?912 states that non#la$ers ma$ appear before the 'LR6 or an$ labor arbiter onl$ )1+ if the$ represent themselves2 or ):+ if the$ represent their organi"ation or the members thereof. 6omplainant is the former emplo$ee of the respondent in her la office. The former charged the latter for malpractice or other gross misconduct in the office for cooperating in the illegal practice of la b$ her husband. The complainant submitted the folloing evidencesC 1+ the letterhead of 6ristal# o Tenorio La ffice here the name of Felicisimo Tenorio2 Hr.2 husband of the respondent2 is listed as a senior partner0 and :.+ a ,agip 6ommunication o RadioDs Group identification card signed b$ the respondent here her husband is identified as &tt$. Felicisimo Tenorio2 Hr.M. ,he added that respondentDs husband even appeared in court hearings. Buring the investigation of the I(32 complainant filed a -otion to ithdra 6omplaint. Respondent no moved for the dismissal of the case for failure of the complainant to appear in the said case.
(eltran Hr vs. &bad
•
In the En Banc decision of -arch :2 194 in the above#entitled case2 the 6ourt found respondent Elmo ,. &bad2 ho passed the 197 (ar examinations but
•
•
•
•
•
•
hether or not respondent is guilt$ of assisting in the unauthori"ed practice of la.
hether or not the respondent is guilt$ of contempt of court.
•
E,. & la$er ho allos a non# member of the (ar to misrepresent himself as a la$er and to practice la is guilt$ of violating 6anon 9 and Rule 9.1 of the 6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$. 3ublic polic$ re>uires that the practice of la be limited to those individuals found dul$ >ualified in education and character. The purpose is to protect the public2 the court2 the client2 and the bar from the incompetence or dishonest$ of those unlicensed to practice la and not sub!ect to the disciplinar$ control of the 6ourt. It devolves upon a la$er to see that this purpose is attained2 otherise2 the la ma8es it a misbehavior on his part sub!ect to disciplinar$ action2 to aid a la$man in the unauthori"ed practice of la. es. Respondent should 8no that the circumstances hich he narrated do not constitute his admission to the 3hilippine (ar and the right )or privilege+ to
•
•
has not been admitted to the 3hilippine (ar2 in contempt of 6ourt for illegal practice of la2 and imposed upon him a fine of 3%.. Respondent paid the fine on -a$ :2 194 The complainant on -arch 1@2 19@ reiterated his motion to circulari"e to all -etro -anila courts that respondent is not authori"ed to practice la2 ith pra$er that the latter be punished ith greater severit$.
practice la thereafter. uisites for becoming a la$er still had to be performed2 namel$C his la$erDs oath to be administered b$ this 6ourt and his signature in the Roll of &ttorne$s.
•
•
former in connection ith several cases filed against him b$ the said &tt$. (eltran0 respondent respectfull$ submits o that &tt$. (eltran is tr$ing his ver$ best to harass the respondent under the guise of conducting a 6rusade personall$ ith the end in vie that respondent submit to his ill# desires and veiled threats and finall$ come into terms ith him. complainant presented the records in 6riminal 6ases 'os. :?@2 :?% and :??2 entitled APeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio S. Maravilla, Jr., et al .A of (ranch 12 Regional Trial 6ourt2 ue"on 6it$2 ere under &tt$. Elmo (abad 6omplainant also testified that on Becember 2 194 he as at the 11th floor of the ue"on 6it$ Regional Trial 6ourt '6HR2 (ranch 12 ue"on 6it$ and sa respondent &bad pass b$ in coat and tie and because he 8ne that -r. &bad is a respondent in a case before the ,upreme 6ourt and had been declared as a non#la$er in its decision of -arch :2 1942 he )complainant+ got curious and folloed respondent and sa the latter enter the sala of (ranch 1 of the Regional Trial 6ourt of ue"on 6it$0 that he sa him there and after about tent$ minutes hen he ent bac8 to the same sala2 he sa respondent in the place of the said court here the la$ers ere supposed to be seated0 that some da$s after2 he ent bac8 to the said sala and inspected the records of the criminal cases numbered :?@2 :?% and :??2Q hich are the
•
•
•
&guirre vs. Rana
•
•
•
•
sub!ect matters of the certification of the 6ler8 of 6ourt2 &tt$. Bomingo2 before the Investigator -rs. Eufrocina (. Ison the 6ourt Reporter ho too8 don and transcribed the stenographic notes of the proceedings in the afternoon of Becember 2 194 in the said criminal cases in the aforesaid trial court2 appeared before the undersigned Investigator and positivel$ Identified respondent Elmo &bad as the &tt$. Elmo &bad ho appeared as counsel for Huan del Gallego III in the aforesaid proceedings that afternoon of Becember 2 194 The aforesaid documentar$ and testimonial evidence2 as ell as the above report of the '(I2 have clearl$ proved that respondent &bad is still practicing la despite the decision of this 6ourt of -arch :2 194.
Rana as among those ho passed the : (ar Examinations. before the scheduled mass oath#ta8ing2 complainant &guirre filed against respondent a 3etition for Benial of &dmission to the (ar. The 6ourt alloed respondent to ta8e his oath. Respondent too8 the la$erDs oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of &ttorne$s up to no. 6omplainant alleges that respondent2 hile not $et a la$er2 appeared as counsel for a candidate in an election. n the charge of violation of la2 complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government emplo$ee2 being a secretar$ of the ,angguniang (a$an of -andaon2 -asbate. &s such2 respondent is not alloed b$ la to act as counsel for a client in an$ court or administrative
•
hether or not respondent engaged in the unauthori"ed practice of la
•
•
'o. The 6ourt held that practice of laM means an$ activit$2 in or out of court2 hich re>uires the application of la2 legal procedure2 8noledge2 training and experience. To engage in the practice of la is to perform acts hich are usuall$ performed b$ members of the legal profession. Generall$2 to practice la is to render an$ 8ind of service hich re>uires the use of legal 8noledge or s8ill. The right to practice la is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character ith special >ualifications dul$ ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
•
bod$. n the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation2 complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice ma$oralt$ candidate George (unan ithout the latter engaging respondentDs services. 6omplainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a plo$ to prevent the proclamation of the inning vice ma$oralt$ candidate.
•
•
•
Hudge La>uindanum vs. uintana
•
This administrative case against &tt$. 'estor . uintana )&tt$. uintana+ stemmed from a letter addressed to the 6ourt filed b$ Executive Hudge Lil$ L$dia &. La>uindanum )Hudge La>uindanum+ of the Regional Trial 6ourt of -idsa$ap2 6otabato re>uesting that proper disciplinar$ action be imposed on him for performing notarial functions in -idsa$ap2 6otabato2 hich is be$ond the territorial !urisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission2 and for alloing his ife to do notarial acts in his absence.
•
hether or not &tt$. uintana violated the :@ Rules on 'otarial 3ractice and 6anon 9 of the 6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$ hen he let his ife notari"e documents in his absence
•
presupposes possession of integrit$2 legal 8noledge2 educational attainment2 and even public trust since a la$er is an officer of the court. & bar candidate does not ac>uire the right to practice la simpl$ b$ passing the bar examinations. The practice of la is a privilege that can be ithheld even from one ho has passed the bar examinations2 if the person see8ing admission had practiced la ithout a license. True2 respondent here passed the : (ar Examinations and too8 the la$erDs oath. ualification to become an attorne$#at#la. Respondent should 8no that to essential re>uisites for becoming a la$er still had to be performed2 namel$C his la$erDs oath to be administered b$ this 6ourt and his signature in the Roll of &ttorne$s. &tt$. uintana is personall$ accountable for the documents that he admitted ere signed b$ his ife. uires la$ers not to directl$ or indirectl$ assist in the unauthori"ed practice of la.
•
•
•
•
•
In her letter2 Hudge La>uindanum alleged that pursuant to &.-. 'o. 4##:#,62 executive !udges are re>uired to closel$ monitor the activities of notaries public ithin the territorial bounds of their !urisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not extend notarial functions be$ond the limits of their authorit$. uindanum also alleged that2 upon further investigation of the matter2 it as discovered that it as &tt$. uintanas ife ho performed notarial acts henever he as out of the office as attested to b$ the Hoint &ffidavit executed b$ Nristine 6. Guro and Elenita B. (allentes. In his Response2 &tt$. uintana alleged that he filed a petition for notarial commission before (ranch 12 Regional Trial 6ourt2 -idsa$ap2 6otabato.uindanum for three ee8s. uindanums inaction as that she >uestioned his affiliation ith the Integrated (ar of the 3hilippines )I(3+ 6otabato 6it$ 6hapter2 and re>uired him to be a member of I(3 Nidapaan 6it$ 6hapter and to obtain a
•
•
•
6ertification of 3a$ments from the latter chapter. (ecause of this2 he opted to ithdra his petition. &fter he ithdre his petition2 he claimed that Hudge La>uindanum sent a cler8 from her office to as8 him to return his petition2 but he did not oblige because at that time he alread$ had a 6ommission for 'otar$ 3ublic issued b$ Executive Hudge Reno E. 6oncha of the Regional Trial 6ourt2 (ranch 1@2 6otabato 6it$. &tt$. uintana lamented that he as singled out b$ Hudge La>uindanum2 because the latter immediatel$ issued notarial commissions to other la$ers ithout as8ing for so man$ re>uirements. uindanum even trac8ed don all his pleadings0 communicated ith his clients0 and disseminated information through letters2 pronouncements2 and directives to court cler8s and other la$ers to humiliate him and be ostraci"ed b$ fello la$ers. &tt$. uintana argued that he subscribed documents in his office at -idsa$ap2 6otabato0 and -idsa$ap is part of the 3rovince of 6otabato. uipped ith a notarial commission. uindanum had no authorit$ to issue such directive2 because onl$ Executive Hudge Reno E. 6oncha2 ho issued his notarial commission2 and the ,upreme 6ourt could prohibit him from notari"ing in
•
•
•
•
the 3rovince of 6otabato. before the (6 presided b$ &tt$. -a. 6risitina (. La$usa )uindanum presented a Beed of Bonation2hich as notari"ed b$ &tt$. uintana in :@. uindanum testified that &tt$. uintana continued to notari"e documents in the $ears :? to :7 despite the fact that his commission as notar$ public for and in the 3rovince of -aguindanao and 6otabat o 6it$ had alread$ expired on Becember 412 :%2 and he had not reneed the same. For his part2 &tt$. uintana admitted that all the signatures appearing in the documents mar8ed as exhibits of Hudge La>uindanum ere his except for the folloingC )1+ &ffidavit of Loss of &T- 6ard executed b$ Nristine 6. Guro0 and ):+ &ffidavit of Loss of Brivers License executed b$ Elenita B. (allentes0 and )4+ &ffidavit of Loss executed b$ ,antos 5. -agbanua. uindanumC to let somebod$ bring and have them notari"ed b$ his ife2 hen the$ 8ne that his ife is not a la$er. uindanum did not act on his petition2 because he did not compl$ ith her re>uirements for him to transfer his membership to the Nidapaan 6hapter2 herein her sister2 &tt$. &glepa2 is the I(3
•
•
•
•
•
&malgamated LaborersD &ssociation vs. 6ourt of Industrial Relations
•
•
•
3resident. n the one hand2 Hudge La>uindanum explained that she as onl$ performing her responsibilit$ and had nothing against &tt$. uintana. The reason h$ she did not act on his petition as that he had not paid his I(3 dues2 hich is a re>uirement before a notarial commission ma$ be granted. ,he told his ife to secure a certification of pa$ment from the I(32 but she did not return. Finall$2 &tt$. uintana as8ed for forgiveness for hat he had done and promised not to repeat the same. uindanum submitted a 6ertificationand its entries sho that &tt$. uintana paid his I(3 dues for the $ear :% onl$ on Hanuar$ 92 :? per fficial Receipt ).R.+ 'o. ?141. Li8eise2 the arrears of his I(3 dues for the $ears 19942 199%2 199?2 and 199 to :4 ere also paid onl$ on Hanuar$ 92 :? per .R. 'o. ?147.
•
hether or not the fees are reasonable
•
'o. The stipulated 4P attorne$s; fee is excessive and unconscionable. ith the exception of &rsenio Re$es ho receives a monthl$ salar$ of 317%2 the other successful complainants ere mere age earners paid a dail$ rate of 3@.: to 3%.. 14 6onsidering the long period of time that the$ ere illegall$ and arbitraril$ deprived of their !ust pa$2 these laborers loo8ed up to the favorable mone$
•
•
•
•
42 19%? and Hul$ ?2 19%?+2 :respondents (iscom2 Halandoni2 and Guillen2 on Hul$ 92 19%72 ansered and counterclaimed. Respondents Fraternal Labor /nion and 3oli also filed their anser dated Hul$ 1:2 19%7. ith the issues !oined2 the case on the merits as heard before a trial commissioner. &t the hearings2 onl$ ten of the fort$#eight complainant laborers appeared and testified. To of these ten ere permanent )regular+ emplo$ees of respondent compan$0 the remaining eight ere seasonal or8ers. The regular emplo$ees ere &rsenio Re$es and Fidel -agtubo. ,easonal or8ers ere 6atalino (ango$2 Huan Fernande"2 Hose Garlitos2 Bionisio 3ido2 ,antiago Talagtag2 Bominador Tangente2 Felimon 5illaluna and (rigido 6asas. 6IR2 thru &ssociate Hudge &rsenio I. -artine"2 rendered !udgment2 hich provides2 inter alia2 that the to regular emplo$ees )Re$es and -agtubo+ be reinstated Ato their former positions2 ithout loss of seniorit$ and other benefits hich should have accrued to them had the$ not been illegall$ dismissed2 ith full bac8 ages from the time of their said dismissals up to the time of their actual reinstatements2 minus hat the$ have earned elsehere in the meantimeA and that the eight seasonal or8ers Abe readmitted to their positions as seasonal or8ers of respondent compan$ )(iscom+2 ith bac8 ages as seasonal or8ers from the time the$ ere not rehired at the start of the 19%%#19%? milling season on ctober 12 19%% up to the time the$ are actuall$ reinstated2 less the amount earned elsehere during the period of their la$#off.A &tt$. Leonardo 6. Fernande" )a respondent herein+ filed on Hul$ 1%2 19?4 in the same case = 6IR 6ase 'o. 7#
•
•
•
!udgment as a serum to their pitiful economic malaise. & thirt$ per cent )4P+ slice therefrom immensel$ dilutes the palliative ingredient of this !udicial antidote. the real ob!ective of the 6IR !udgment in 6IR 6ase 'o. 7# /L3#6ebu is to benefit the complaint laborers ho ere un!ustifiedl$ dismissed from the service. hile it is true that laborers should not be alloed to develop that atavistic proclivit$ to bite the hands that fed them2 still la$ers should not be permitted to get a lion;s share of the benefits due b$ reason of a or8er;s labor. hat is to be paid to the laborers is not indfall but a product of the seat of their bro. 6ontracts for legal services beteen laborer and attorne$ should then be "ealousl$ scrutini"ed to the end that a fair share of the benefits be not denied the former. The ten complainants involved herein are mere laborers. It is not far#fetched to assume that the$ have not reached an educational attainment comparable to that of petitioner 6arbonell or respondent Fernande" ho2 on the other hand2 are la$ers. (ecause of the ine>ualit$ of the situation beteen laborers and la$ers2 courts should go slo in aarding huge sums b$ a$ of attorne$s; fees based solel$ on contracts. &n examination of the record of the case ill readil$ sho that an aard of tent$#five per cent ):%P+ attorne$s; fees reasonabl$ compensates the hole of the legal services rendered in 6IR
•
/L3#6ebu = a A'otice of &ttorne$;s Lien.A uivalent to :%P thereof hich agreement is evidenced b$ a 'oteA0 and that the :%P attorne$;s fee so contracted is Areasonable and proper ta8ing into consideration the length of services he rendered and the nature of the or8 actuall$ performed b$ him.A n ,eptember :%2 19?42 &tt$. Fernande" filed an A&mended 'otice of &ttorne$;s Lien2A hich in part readsC 4. That the laborers2 sub!ect of o this present litigation2 sometime on Februar$ 42 19%?2 had initiall$ voluntaril$ agreed to give /ndersigned 6ounsel herein2 representing his &ttorne$;s fees on contingent basis2 such amounts as e>uivalent to Thirt$ 3er 6ent )4P+ of hatever mone$ claims that ma$ be ad!udicated b$ this uentl$ thereafter2 o hen the above#entitled 6ase as alread$ decided in their favor2 &rsenio Re$es2 in behalf
•
•
6ase 'o. 7#/L3#6ebu. This fee must be shared b$ petitioner &tt$. 6arbonell and respondent &tt$. Fernande". For2 after all2 the$ are the counsel of record of the complainants. Respondent &tt$. Fernande" cannot den$ this fact. The pleadings filed even at the earl$ stages of the proceedings reveal the existence of an association beteen said attorne$s. The pleadings ere filed under the name of AFernande" O 6arbonell.A This imports a common effort of the to. & contingent fee contract specif$ing the percentage of recover$ an attorne$ is to receive in a suit Ashould be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case2 including the ris8 and uncertaint$ of the compensation2 but should ala$s be sub!ect to the supervision of a court2 as to its reasonableness.A ,ince then this 6ourt has invariabl$ fixed counsel fees on a quantum meruit basis henever the fees stipulated appear excessive2 unconscionable2 or unreasonable2 because a la$er is primaril$ a court officer charged ith the dut$ of assisting the court in administering impartial !ustice beteen the parties2 and hence2 the fees should be sub!ect to !udicial control. 'or should it be ignored that sound public polic$ demands that courts disregard stipulations for counsel fees2 henever the$ appear to be a source of speculative profit at the expense of the debtor or mortgagor.
•
•
•
of his co#laborers ho are also 6omplainants in this 6ase begged from the /ndersigned 6ounsel herein that he reduce his attorne$;s fees to Tent$# Five 3er 6ent ):%P+ onl$ for the reason that the$ have to share and satisf$ also &tt$. Hose /r. 6arbonell in the e>uivalent amount of Five 3er 6ent )%P+ although the latter;s actual services rendered as so insignificant thereof0 %. That because of the o pleadings of said &rsenio Re$es2 ho is the 3resident of said /nion2 the /ndersigned 6ounsel herein finall$ agreed and consented that his attorne$;s fees be reduced to onl$ Tent$#Five 3er 6ent ):%P+ instead of Thirt$ 3er 6ent )4P+ as originall$ agreed upon in 19%?. n ctober 72 19?42 &tt$. Hose /r. 6arbonell )a petitioner herein+ filed in court a document labelled ABischargeA informing 6IR of the discharge2 release and dismissal = thru a union board resolution )attached thereto as &nnex & thereof+ = of &tt$. Leonardo 6. Fernande" as one of the la$ers of the complainants in 6IR 6ase 'o. 7#/L3#6ebu2 effective Februar$ :2 19?4. n ctober 1@2 19?42 &tt$. Fernande" replied.
• •
•
Birector of Lands vs. &dorable
•
•
•
•
6arlet vs. 6ourt of &ppeals
•
•
•
contracts for attorne$s; fees is not a labor dispute and is not one among the cases ruled to be ithin 6IR;s authorit$0 and ):+ to consider such a dispute to be a mere incident to a case over hich 6IR ma$ validl$ assume !urisdiction is to disregard the special and limited nature of said court;s !urisdiction. These arguments are devoid of merit. The present controvers$ over attorne$s; fees is but an epilogue or a tail#end feature of the main case2 6IR 'o. 7#/L3# 6ebu2 hich undoubtedl$ is ithin 6IR;s !urisdiction. &nd2 it has been held that Aonce the 6ourt of Industrial Relations has ac>uired !urisdiction over a case under the la of its creation2 it retains that !urisdiction until the case is completel$ decided2 includin all the incidents related thereto.A &dorable files a land claim before the Birector of Lands. The case ent to the 6& for appeal.
•
' the conduct of &tt$. amora is proper.
•
•
•
•
' the action of &tt$. Himene" is proper.
•
•
•
es. The conduct of &tt$. amora is proper. The 6ourt in this case praised &tt$. amoraDs conduct as the highest standard of truthfulness2 fair pla$ and nobilit$ as becomes of the deserving member of the bar.
'o. The action of &tt$. Himene" is not proper. 6anon 1 of the 6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$ provides that & la$er oes candor2 fairness and good faith to the courtM. In the case at bar2 the action of &tt$ Himene" of filing a reconve$ance case despite his 8noledge that there is finalit$ of the case shos that he does not have good faith toards the court.
• •
•
The Insurance Life &ssurance vs. 6loribel
•
• •
•
•
Bel Rosario vs. 6hingcuanco
•
•
•
•
The Emplo$ees &ssoc. Files before the 6IR a complaint for unfair labor practice against the 6ompan$. The 6IR then dismissed such complaint. In its decision2 6IR Hudge -artine" mis>uoted a ,6 decision in the case of Lope" ,r v. 6hronicle 3ublication Emplo$ees &ssDnC )1+ ? ords of the paragraph o >uoted b$ -artine" do 'T appear in the original0 ):+ -artine" used For it is o settled that...M0 the original reads2 For it must be remembered...M )4+ Last sentence in the >uoted o paragraph of -artine" is actuall$ part of the immediatel$ succeeding paragraph in the ,6 decision. In the respondentsD brief2 counsels for respondents >uoted the 6IRDs decision The 6&R rendered a decision evicting Bel Rosario from the land hich he leases from Imperio. uoted a non#existing ,6 decision.
•
hether or not the Hudge and the respondentDs counsel are liable for contempt.
•
•
•
•
•
' the conduct of Bel RosarioDs counsel deserves a disciplinar$ action.
•
•
•
'o. The conduct of Bel RosarioDs counsel does not deserve a disciplinar$ action. In this case2 the 6ourt ruled that the name of the case as given correctl$ and there as clearl$ no deception on the part of the counsel.
•
,urigao -ineral Reservation vs. 6loribel
•
•
•
•
•
,olicitor General avers2 are set forth in the memoranda personall$ signed b$ &tt$. Hose (eltran ,ottoC a. The$ )petitioners2 including o the Executive ,ecretar$+ have made these false2 ridiculous and ild statements in a desperate attempt to pre!udice the courts against -ac&rthur International. ,uch efforts could be accuratel$ called Ascattershot desperationA )-emorandum for Respondents dated -arch :72 19?2 pp. 14# 1@2 three lines from the bottom of page 14 and first line page 1@+. b. ,uch a proposition is corrupt o on its face and it la$s bare the immoral and arrogant attitude of the petitioners. )Respondents; ,upplemental -emorandum and Repl$ to 3etitioner;s -emorandum (rief2 dated &pril 142 19?2 p. 1?2 last to lines on bottom of the page+. c. The herein petitioners ... o opportunisticall$ change their claims and stories not onl$ from case to case but from pleading to pleading in the same case. )Respondents; ,upplemental -emorandum2 !bid.2 p.172 sixth2 seventh and eighth lines from bottom of the page+. ,urigao -ineral Reservation (oard issued an Invitation to (id for the exploration and development of mineral deposits in a certain portion in the 3rovince of ,urigao. It as !oined b$ to ):+ bidders. &fter evaluation2 both ere dis>ualified and their subse>uent motions denied. ne of the )failed+ bidder filed a petition at the 6ourt of First Instance of -anila see8ing relief. &fter the petitioners here )respondents in
•
' the attorne$s are liable for contempt.
•
•
•
•
•
•
n the first contempt charge2 &tt$. 5icente L. ,antiago and &tt$. Hose (eltran ,otto guilt$ of contempt of court2 and fines &tt$. ,antiago in the sum of 3122 and &tt$. ,otto2 310 and holds &tt$s. Graciano 6. Regala and &ssociates and &tt$. Erlito R. /$ not guilt$ of contempt of court0 and It is true that ,antiago voluntaril$ deleted paragraph ? hich contained language that is as disrespectful. (ut e cannot erase the fact that it has been made.
•
•
-uUo" vs. 6& and Belia ,utton
•
•
•
•
•
&de" Realt$ Inc vs 6&
•
•
•
the said case+ ansered the petition2 Hudge Gaudencio 6loribel of 6FI issued a restraining order to petitioners here )respondent in the petition to Hudge 6loribel+ to avert from their action in the bidding process. 3etitioners here see8 a rit of preliminar$ in!unction to the ,upreme 6ourt on the assailed action of Hudge 6loribel due to his alleged grave abuse of discretion on the sub!ect matter. ,utton made some misrepresentations in the facts of the case here she see8s a revie before the ,6. The la firm in a pleading entitled AHoint &polog$ to the ,upreme 6ourtA filed on Becember 12 19712 signed !ointl$ b$ ,edfre$ &. rdoUe" and Belia ,utton2 did see8 to ma8e amends Belia T. ,utton had no intention to misrepresent an$ >uestion of fact before this uate extensive experience in preparing petitions for certiorari hich ma$ have caused the inaccurate statements in the said petition The AHoint &polog$A thus offered did mitigate to some extent the liabilit$ of respondent ,utton. ,ome members of the 6ourt feel2 hoever2 that it does not go far enough. hile expressing regret and offering apolog$2 there as lac8ing that free admission that hat as done b$ her should not characteri"ed merel$ as AerrorsA consisting as the$ do of Ainaccurate statements.A &tt$. Bacana$ made some intercalation in the decision of the 6ourt of &ppeals hen he appealed before the ,6. Bue this2 the 6ourt had suspended him indefinitel$. Bacana$ argued that it as his client ho made the intercalation and later on he admitted that his secretar$ made the
•
•
' such conduct deserves disciplinar$ action.
•
•
•
•
•
' the conduct of Bacana$ arrants a suspension.
•
•
administration of !ustice.A n the second contempt charge2 &tt$. 5icente L. ,antiago2 -orton F. -eads and &tt$. Huanita -. 6aling guilt$ of contempt of court2 and fines &tt$. 5icente L. ,antiago2 an additional 3122 -orton F. -eads2 3122 and &tt$. Huanito -. 6aling2 3:.
es. The conduct of &tt$. ,utton deserves disciplinar$ action. /nder the 6anon 1 of the 63R2 a la$er shall oes candor and honest$ to the court. In the case at bar2 the fact that &tt$. ,utton made false facts in her pleading for revie in ,6 is a clear manifestation that she lac8s candor for the court.
es. The conduct of Bacana$ arrants suspension. Rule 1.1 of the 63R provides that a la$er shall not 8noingl$ mis>uote or misrepresent the contents of the paper2 language or the argument of opposing counsel2 or the text of a decision
•
•
•
&guinaldo vs. &guinaldo
intercalation on the document. uite apparentl$2 given him sufficient time and occasion to soul#search and reflect on his professional conduct2 redeem himself and prove once more that he is orth$ to practice la and be capable of upholding the dignit$ of the legal profession.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
or authorit$. In the case at bar2 the fact that &tt$. Bacana$ made the intercalation on the 6& decision ma8es him liable under such rule.
henever a part$ to a pending case dies2 becomes incapacitated or incompetent2 it shall be the dut$ of his attorne$ to inform the court promptl$ of such death2 incapacit$ or incompetenc$2 and to give the name and residence of his executor2 administrator2 guardian or other legal representative.
• • •
6anlas vs. 6& Eternal Gardens vs. 6&
•
• •
The case started on -a$ 12 191 hen private respondent#spouses Hose ,eelin and Lilia ,evilla ,eelin filed a complaint against 6entral B$eing O Finishing 6orporation )6entral B$eing for brevit$+ for >uieting of title and for declaration of nullit$ of Transfer 6ertificate of Title )T6T 'o. :%9@:+ issued in the name of said corporation2 doc8eted as 6ivil 6ase 'o. 6#9:972 before the Regional Trial 6ourt of 6aloocan 6it$. Hudgment is null and void. ,ubse>uentl$2 private respondents filed an
e note that hile la$ers oe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and "eal in the defense of their client;s right2 the$ should not forget that the$ are officers of the court2 bound to exert ever$ effort to assist in the speed$ and efficient administration of !ustice. The$ should not2 therefore2 misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of !ustice or undul$ dela$ a case2 impede the execution of a
/rgent -anifestation and -otion for an Immediate rit of 3ossession*(rea8 pen rder. The motion as opposed b$ herein petitioner Eternal Gardens -emorial 3ar8 6orporation contending that it is not submitting to the !urisdiction of the trial court0 that it is completel$ unaare of the suit beteen private respondents and 6entral B$eing0 that it is the true and registered oner of the lot having bought the same from 6entral B$eing0 and that it as a bu$er in good faith.
•
•
•
!udgment or misuse court processes. &s officers of the court2 la$ers have a responsibilit$ to assist in the proper administration of !ustice. The$ do not discharge this dut$ b$ filing pointless petitions that onl$ add to the or8load of the !udiciar$2 especiall$ this 6ourt2 hich is burdened enough as it is. & !udicious stud$ of the facts and the la should advise them hen a case such as this2 should not be permitted to be filed to merel$ clutter the alread$ congested !udicial doc8ets. The$ do not advance the cause of la or their clients b$ commencing litigations that for sheer lac8 of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts. It is a settled rule that once a court renders a final !udgment2 all the issues beteen or among the parties before it are deemed resolved and its !udicial functions ith respect to an$ matter related to the controvers$ litigated comes to an end.
• • • •
ReC ,otto ReC &lmacen aldivar vs. Gon"ales
•
•
• •
•
•
aldivar as the governor of &nti>ue.
•
•
hether or not Gon"ale" is guilt$ of contempt.
•
es. The statements made b$ respondent Gon"ale" clearl$ constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinar$ authorit$ of the ,upreme 6ourt.
•
•
Gon"ale" directing him to temporaril$ restrain from investigating and filing informations against aldivar. Gon"ales hoever proceeded ith the investigation and he filed criminal informations against aldivar. Gon"ale" even had a nespaper intervie here he proudl$ claims that he scored one on the ,upreme 6ourt0 that the ,upreme 6ourtDs issuance of the TR is a manifestation theta the rich and influential persons et favorable actions from the Supreme $ourt, %&hile' it is difficult for an ordinary litiant to et his petition to be iven due course(. aldivar then filed a -otion for 6ontempt against Gon"ale". The ,upreme 6ourt then ordered Gon"ale" to explain his side. Gon"ale" stated that the statements in the nespapers ere true0 that he as onl$ exercising his freedom of speech0 that he is entitled to critici"e the rulings of the 6ourt2 to point out here he feels the 6ourt ma$ have lapsed into error.
•
•
•
and degrade the ,upreme 6ourt and2 through the 6ourt2 the entire s$stem of administration of !ustice in the countr$. Gon"ale" is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. hat Gon"ale" seems unaare of is that freedom of speech and of expression2 li8e all constitutional freedoms2 is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be ad!usted to and accommodated ith the re>uirements of e>uall$ important public interests. ne of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrit$ and orderl$ functioning of the administration of !ustice. There is no antinom$ beteen free expression and the integrit$ of the s$stem of administering !ustice. Gon"ale"2 apart from being a la$er and an officer of the court2 is also a ,pecial 3rosecutor ho oes duties of fidelit$ and respect to the Republic and to the ,upreme 6ourt as the embodiment and the repositor$ of the !udicial poer in the government of the Republic. The responsibilit$ of Gon"ale" to uphold the dignit$ and authorit$ of the ,upreme 6ourt and not to promote distrust in the administration of !ustice is heavier than that of a private practicing la$er. Gon"ale" is also entitled to critici"e the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar2 his statements2 particularl$ the one here he alleged that members of the ,upreme 6ourt
•
•
ic8er vs. &rcangel
•
•
•
This is a petition for certiorari 2 assailing the orders of respondent Hudge 3aul T. &rcangel of the Regional Trial 6ourt2 Vnding petitioners guilt$ of direct contempt and sentencing each of them to su ffer imprisonment for Vve )%+ da$s and to pa$ a Vne of 31.. Nell$ ic8er2 ith his ife $nee Bieppe and the Tectonics &sia &rchitects and Engineering 6o.2 brought suit in the Regional Trial 6ourt of -a8ati against the LF, Enterprises2 Inc. and others2 for the annulment of certain deeds b$ hich a house and lot at Forbes 3ar82 hich the plaintiffs claimed the$ had purchased2 as allegedl$ fraudulentl$ titled in the name of the defendant LF, Enterprises and later sold b$ the latter to co#defendant Hose 3oe. The case2 doc8eted as 6ivil 6ase 'o. 1@@2 as assigned to (ranch 14@ formerl$ presided over b$ Hudge Ignacio 6apulong ho later as replaced b$ respondent Hudge 3aul T. &rcangel. n 'ovember 12 19942 ic8er;s counsel2 &tt$. rlando &. Ra$os2 Vled a motion see8ing the inhibition of the respondent !udge from the consideration of the case. The motion alleged in pertinent partC -eantime2 Hudge IgnacioS o 6apulong ho had full grasp of this case as eased out of his station. In one hearing2 the &cting 3residing Hudge had not $et reported to his station and in that set hearing2 counsel for defendant LF, Enterprises2 Inc. ho must have 8non that
•
hether or not respondent !udge committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioners liable for direct contempt
•
•
•
approached him2 are of no relation to the aldivar case. The ,upreme 6ourt suspended Gon"ale" indefinitel$ from the practice of la. hat is involved in this case is an instance of direct contempt2 since it involves a pleading allegedl$ containing derogator$2 o ffensive or malicious statements submitted to the court or !udge in hich the proceedings are pending. It is e>uivalent to Amisbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or !udge as to interrupt the proceedings before the sameA ithin the meaning of Rule 712 W 1 of the Rules of 6ourt and2 therefore2 direct contempt. In case of indirect or constructive contempt2 the contemnor ma$ be punished onl$ AaSfter charge in riting has been Vled2 and an opportunit$ given to the accused to be heard b$ himself or counsel2A hereas in case of direct contempt2 the respondent ma$ be summaril$ ad!udged in contempt. The !udgment in cases of indirect contempt is appealable2 hereas in cases of direct contempt onl$ !udgments of contempt b$ -T6s2 -6T6s and -eT6s are appealable. The 6ourt sustains Hudge &rcangel;s Vnding that petitioners are guilt$ of contempt. & reading of the allegations in petitioners; motion for inhibition leads to no other conclusion than that respondent !udge as beholden to the opposing counsel in the case2 &tt$. (en!amin ,antos2 to hom or to hose ife2 the !udge oed his transfer to the RT6 of
3laintiffs have information that the &cting 3residing Hudge as personall$ recruited from the south b$ &tt$. (en!amin ,antos and*or his ife2 &tt$. felia 6alcetas#,antos2 one time member of the Hudicial and (ar 6ouncil2 against hom plainti ff Nell$ R. ic8er Vled &dministrative 6ase 'o. 479?2 and although said case as dismissed2 nevertheless2 plaintiffs feel that it as the reason for &tt$. felia 6alcetas# ,antos; relief0 3laintiffs have reason to doubt o the partialit$ and integrit$ of
•
•
•
•
•
•
-a8ati2 hich necessitated Aeasing outA the former !udge to ma8e room for such transfer. These allegations are derogator$ to the integrit$ and honor of respondent !udge and constitute an unarranted criticism of the administration of !ustice in this countr$. The$ suggest that la$ers2 if the$ are ell connected2 can manipulate the assignment of !udges to their advantage &tt$. Ra$os2 hoever2 cannot evade responsibilit$ for the allegations in >uestion. &s a la$er2 he is not !ust an instrument of his client. (ased on Canon 11 of the 6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$2 &tt$. Ra$os bears as much responsibilit$ for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his client &tt$. Ra$os; dut$ to the courts is not secondar$ to that of his client. The 6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$ en!oins him to Aos!r"! an# main$ain $h! r!sp!%$ #u! $o $h! %our$s an# $o &u#i%ia' o ffi%!rs an# ($ o) insis$ on simi'ar %on#u%$ * o$h!rs +an#+ no$ ($ o) a$$riu$! $o a ,u#g! mo$i"!s no$ suppor$!# * $h! r!%or# or ha"! ma$!ria'i$* $o $h! %as!.A &fter the respondent !udge had favorabl$ responded to petitioners; Aprofuse apologiesA and indicated that he ould let them offith a Vne2 ithout an$ !ail sentence2 petitioners served on respondent !udge a cop$ of their instant petition hich pra$ed in part that A)espondent Jude
•
motion did not necessaril$ express his vies because he merel$ signed the motion Ain a representative capacit$2 in other ords2 !ust la$ering2A for Nell$ ic8er2 ho said in a note to him that a A$oung man possibl$ emplo$ed b$ the 6ourtA had advised him to have the case re#raffled2 hen the opposing counsel &tt$. (en!amin ,antos and the ne !udge both failed to come for a hearing2 because their absence as an indication that &tt$. ,antos 8ne ho Athe !udge ma$ be and hen he ould appearA. Finding petitioners; explanation unsatisfactor$2 respondent !udge2 in an order dated Becember 42 19942 held them guilt$ of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five )%+ da$s and to pa$ a fine of 31..
•
•
Paul *. Arcanel be )E+E)*E to his former station. -e simply cannot do in the )*$ of Maati &here more complex cases are heared /sic0 u nlie in avao $it y.A If nothing else2 this personal attac8 on the !udge onl$ serves to conVrm the Acontumacious attitude2 a Xouting or arrogant belligerenceA Vrst evident in petitioners; motion for inhibition bel$ing their protestations of good faith. (e that as it ma$2 the 6ourt believes that consistent ith the rule that the poer to cite for contempt must be exercised for preservative rather than vindictive principle e thin8 that the !ail sentence on petitioners ma$ be dispensed ith hile vindicating the dignit$ of the court.
• •
-ontecillo vs. Gica
•
•
Horge -ontecillo as accused b$ Francisco Gica of slander. &tt$. uirico del -ar represented -ontecillo and he successfull$ defended -onteceillo in the loer court. Bel -ar as even able to in their counterclaim thus the loer court ordered Gica to pa$ -ontecillo the ad!udged moral damages. Gica appealed the aard of damages to the 6ourt of &ppeals here the latter court reversed the same. &tt$. Bel -ar then filed a motion for reconsideration here he made a veiled threat against the 6ourt of &ppeals !udges intimating that he thin8s the 6& !ustices 8noingl$ rendered an un!ust decisionM and !udgment has been
•
hether or not &tt$. Bel -ar should be suspended.
•
•
es. &tt$. Bel -ar2 b$ his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. &s an officer of the court2 it is his s&orn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessaril$ the hih esteem and reard to&ards the court so essential to the proper administration of #ustice. It is manifest that del -ar has scant respect for the to highest 6ourts of the land hen on the flims$ ground of alleged error in deciding a case2 he proceeded to challenge the integrit$ of both
•
•
•
•
•
rendered through negligenceM and that the 6& alloed itself to be deceived. The 6& denied the -FR and it admonished &tt$. Bel -ar from using such tone ith the court. Bel -ar then filed a second -FR here he again made threats. The 6& then ordered del -ar to sho cause as to h$ he should not be punished for contempt. Thereafter2 del -ar sent the three 6& !ustices a cop$ of a letter hich he sent to the 3resident of the 3hilippines as8ing the said !ustices to consider the 6& !udgment. (ut the 6& did not reverse its !udgment. Bel -ar then filed a civil case against the three !ustices of the 6& before a 6ebu loer court but the civil case as eventuall$ dismissed b$ reason of a compromise agreement here del -ar agreed to pa$ damages to the !ustices. Eventuall$2 the 6& suspended &tt$. Bel -ar from practice. The issue reached the ,upreme 6ourt. Bel -ar as8ed the ,6 to reverse his suspension as ell as the 6& decision as to the -ontecillo case. The ,6 denied both and this earned the ire of del -ar as he demanded from the 6ler8 of the ,upreme 6ourt as to ho ere the !udges ho voted against him. The ,upreme 6ourt then directed del -ar to submit an explanation as to h$ he should not be disciplined. Bel -ar in his explanation instead tried to !ustif$ his actions even stating that had he not been convinced that human efforts in pursuing the caseS ill be fruitlessM he ould have continued ith the civil case against the 6& !ustices. In his explanation2 del -ar also intimated that even the ,upreme 6ourt is part among the corrupt2 the grafters and those allegedl$ committing in!usticeM. Bel -ar even filed a civil case against some ,upreme 6ourt !ustices but the !udge ho handled the case dismissed the
•
6ourts b$ claiming that the$ 8noingl$ rendered un!ust !udgment. In short2 his allegation is that the$ acted ith intent and malice2 if not ith gross ignorance of the la2 in disposing of the case of his client. Bel -ar as then suspended indefinitel$.
•
,angalang vs. I&6
•
•
•
same. The incident before the 6ourt refers to charges for contempt against &tt$. H. 6e"ar ,angco2 counsel for the petitioners ,pouses Hose and Lutgarda ,angalang. n Februar$ :2 1992 the 6ourt issued a Resolution2 re>uiring2 among other things2 &tt$. ,angco to sho cause h$ he should not be punished for contempt Afor using intemperate and accusator$ language.A n -arch :2 1992 &tt$. ,angco filed an explanation. The 6ourt finds &tt$. ,angco;s remar8s in his motion for reconsideration2 particularl$2 . . . The 6ourt not onl$ put to serious >uestion its on integrit$ and competence but also !eopardi"ed its on campaign against graft and corruption undeniabl$ pervading the !udiciar$ . . .M disparaging2 intemperate2 and uncalled#for.
•
hether or not the counselDs act constitutes malpractice in violation of the 6odeDs )63R+ provision on the use of scandalous offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts.
•
•
•
•
3aragas vs. 6ru"
•
In as8ing for reconsideration of the 6ourtDs dismissal of his petition for certiorari in the present case2 counsel for the petitioner2 &tt$. Heremias ,ebastian2 used derogator$
•
hether or not &tt$. ,ebastian is administrativel$ liable for his actions or language.
•
In rendering its !udgment2 the 6ourt $ielded to the records before it2 and to the records alone2 and not to outside influences2 much less2 the influence of an$ of the parties. &tt$. ,angco2 as a former !udge of an inferior court2 should 8no better that in an$ litigation2 one part$ prevails2 but his success ill not !ustif$ indictments of briber$ b$ the other part$.
•
expressions against the dignit$ of the 6ourt in the language of his motion for reconsideration. That such threats and disrespectful language contained in a pleading filed in 6ourts are constitutive of direct contempt has been repeatedl$ decided
•
•
• • •
3eople vs. 6arillo ReC &guas -aceda vs. mbudsman )5as>ue"+
•
•
•
•
•
•
3etitioner (onifacio ,an" -aceda2 3residing Hudge of (ranch 1: of the Regional Trial 6ourt of &nti>ue2 see8s the revie of the folloing orders of the ffice of the mbudsmanC )1+ the rder dated ,eptember 12 1991 den$ing the ex#parte motion to refer to the ,upreme 6ourt filed b$ petitioner0 and ):+ the rder dated 'ovember ::2 19%1 den$ing petitioner;s motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counter#affidavit and other controverting evidences. In his affidavit#complaint dated &pril 12 1991 filed before the ffice of the mbudsman2 respondent 'apoleon &. &biera of the 3ublic &ttorne$;s ffice alleged that petitioner had falsified his 6ertificate of ,ervice 1 dated Februar$ ?2
•
contemptuous and disrespectful and he is hereb$ guilt$ of direct contempt of court. &s remar8ed in 3eople vs. 6arilloC 6ounsel should conduct himself toards the !udges ho tr$ his cases ith that courtes$ all have a right to expect. &s an officer of the court2 it is his sorn and moral dut$ to help build and not destro$ unnecessaril$ that high esteem and regard toards the courts so essential to the proper administration of !ustice. It is right and plausible that an attorne$2 in defending the cause and rights of his client2 should do so ith all the fervor and energ$ of hich he is capable2 but it is not2 and never ill be so2 for him to exercise said right b$ resorting to intimidation or proceeding ithout the propriet$ and respect hich the dignit$ of the courts re>uire.M
• •
hether the ffice of the mbudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a !udge;s certification submitted to the ,upreme 6ourt2 and assuming that it can2 hether a referral should be made first to the ,upreme 6ourt
•
•
& !udge ho falsifies his certificate of service is administrativel$ liable to the ,6 for serious misconduct and under ,ec. 12 Rule 1@ of the Rules of 6ourt2 and criminall$ liable to the ,tate under the Revised 3enal 6ode for his felonious act. In the absence of an$ administrative action ta8en against him b$ the 6ourt ith regard to his certificates of service2 the investigation being conducted b$ the mbudsman encroaches into the 6ourtDs poer of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel2 in violation of the
•
•
•
1992 b$ certif$ing Athat all civil and criminal cases hich have been submitted for decision or determination for a period of 9 da$s have been determined and decided on or before Hanuar$ 412 1992A hen in truth and in fact2 petitioner 8ne that no decision had been rendered in five )%+ civil and ten )1+ criminal cases that have been submitted for decision. Respondent &biera further alleged that petitioner similarl$ falsified his certificates of service for the months of Februar$2 &pril2 -a$2 Hune2 Hul$ and &ugust2 all in 1990 and the months beginning Hanuar$ up to ,eptember 1992 or for a total of seventeen )17+ months. n the other hand2 petitioner contends that he had been granted b$ this 6ourt an extension of ninet$ )9+ da$s to decide the aforementioned cases. 3etitioner also contends that the mbudsman has no !urisdiction over said case despite this 6ourt;s ruling in rap vs. ,andiganba$an2 : since the offense charged arose from the !udge;s performance of his official duties2 hich is under the control and supervision of the ,upreme 6ourt. Furthermore2 the investigation of the mbudsman constitutes an encroachment into the ,upreme 6ourt;s constitutional dut$ of supervision over all inferior courts.
•
•
•
•
doctrine of separation of poers. &rt. 5III2 ,ec. ? of the 6onstitution exclusivel$ vests in the ,6 administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel2 from the 3residing Hustice of the 6& don to the loest municipal trial court cler8. ($ virtue of this poer2 o it is onl$ the ,6 that can oversee the !udgesD and court personnelDs compliance ith all las2 and ta8e the proper administrative action against them if the$ commit an$ violation thereof. 'o other branch of government ma$ intrude into this poer2 ithout running afoul of the doctrine of separation of poers. here a criminal complaint against a !udge or other court emplo$ee arises from their administrative duties2 the mbudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the ,6 for determination hether said !udge or court emplo$ee had acted ithin the scope of their administrative duties. 3etitioner also contends that the mbudsman has no !urisdiction over said cases despite this 6ourt;s ruling in rap vs. ,andiganba$an2 since the offense charged arose from the !udge;s performance of his official duties2 hich is under the control and supervision of the ,upreme 6ourt The 6ourt disagrees ith the first part of petitioner;s basic
•
•
•
•
Fernande" vs. Be Ramos# 5illalon
•
•
•
3alacios2 in his 6omplaint in 6ivil 6ase 'o. %#1172 alleged that he as the oner of a lot covered b$ Transfer 6ertificate of Title )*$* + 'o. 17%7 located in (aranga$ ,an Loren"o2 -a8ati 6it$.
•
hether or not respondent should be disbarred
•
•
argument. There is nothing in the decision in rap that ould restrict it onl$ to offenses committed b$ a !udge unrelated to his official duties. 6ourt agrees ith petitioner that in the absence of an$ administrative action ta8en against him b$ this 6ourt ith regard to his certificates of service2 the investigation being conducted b$ the mbudsman encroaches into the 6ourt;s poer of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel2 in violation of the doctrine of separation of poers. mbudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner;s certificates of service to this 6ourt for determination of hether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load2 as the 6ourt has the necessar$ records to ma8e such a determination The mbudsman cannot compel this 6ourt2 as one of the three branches of government2 to submit its records2 or to allo its personnel to testif$ on this matter2 as suggested b$ public respondent &biera in his affidavit# complaint. 'o. 6ourt agrees ith the recommendation of I(3 6ommissioner Funa. The charges against the respondent do not constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. & la$er2 as an officer of the court2 has a dut$ to be truthful in all his dealings. uire that the la$er advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of T6T 'o. 17%7 b$ pretending to be 6arlos 3alacios2 Hr.2 and b$ filing a 3etition for Hudicial Reconstitution of Lost ners Buplicate riginal 6op$ of T6T 'o. 17%7. The petition as doc8eted as LR6 6ase 'o. -#@%:@. 3alacios received information that Fernande" could help him oppose the s$ndicateDs petition. Thus2 3alacios approached Fernande"2 and the$ eventuall$ succeeded in causing the ithdraal of LR6 6ase 'o. -#@%:@2 ith the assistance of a certain &tt$. &ugusto 3. Himene"2 Hr. 3alacios allegedl$ agreed to pa$ Fernande" 3:22. for the services he rendered in LR6 6ase 'o. -#@%:@. n ,eptember :72 :%2 hen 3alacios visited the 5illage &dministrator of the ,an Loren"o 5illage &ssociation2 he bumped into -rs. Hocel$n Lirio ho expressed her interest in 3alacios ,an La"aro propert$. ,he had heard Fernande" as selling it. 3alacios as surprised b$ -rs. Lirios stor$2 as he had no intention of selling the propert$. /pon investigation2 he discovered that Fernande" had falsified a Beed of Bonation that he )3alacios+ purportedl$ executed in Fernande" favor. This Beed as dul$ registered2 and on the strength of the purported donation2 T6T 'o. 17%7 in 3alacios name as cancelled2 and a ne T6T )T6T 'o. ::?9+ as issued in Fernande" name. 3alacios then emplo$ed the services of respondent &tt$. 5illalon to file a 6omplaint for the declaration of nullit$ of the Beed of Bonation that became the basis for the issuance of a title in Fernande" name. This complaint as subse>uentl$ amended to implead Romeo 6astro2 &tt$. &ugusto 3. Himene"2 Hr.2 Lev$ R. Be Bios2 and Rosario T. &bobo. In his &nser2 Fernande" claimed that the
•
clients opponent. & la$er is his or her clients advocate0 hile dut$#bound to utter no falsehood2 an advocate is not obliged to build the case for his or her clients opponent. The respondentDs former client2 3alacios2 approached her to file a complaint for the annu'm!n$ of $h! D!!# of Dona$ion. This as the cause of action chosen b$ her client. &ssuming aruendo that the respondent 8ne of the presence of the Beed of &bsolute ,ale2 its existence2 is2 indeed2 a matter of defense for Fernande". e cannot fault the respondent for choosing not to pursue the nullification of the Beed of &bsolute ,ale. The respondent alleged that her former client2 3alacios2 informed her that the Beed of &bsolute ,ale as void for lac8 of consideration. Furthermore2 unli8e the Beed of Bonation2 the Beed of &bsolute ,ale as no$ r!gis$!r!# in $h! R!gis$r* of D!!#s an# -as no$ $h! asis for $h! $ransf!r of $i$'! of Pa'a%ios prop!r$* $o .!rnan#!/. /nder the circumstances2 it as not unreasonable for a la$er to conclude2 hether correctl$ or incorrectl$2 that the Beed of &bsolute ,ale as immaterial in achieving the ultimate goal the recover$ of 3alacios propert$.
•
•
•
transfer of title in his name as proper on account of an existing Beed of &bsolute ,ale dated Hanuar$ 1:2 :% beteen him and 3alacios. uired before the notarial
•
Rivera vs. 6orral
•
section of the Regional Trial 6ourt ))*$ + of ue"on 6it$ thru a letter#re>uest2 hether a record of the deed existed in the said office0 in the letter#re>uest2 the respondent misrepresented that there as alread$ a pending case in the RT6 of -a8ati before 'ovember 92 :%0 refused to receive the o complainants &nser ith 6ompulsor$ 6ounterclaim so that she could file on behalf of her client an &mended 6omplaint ithout leave of court and ithout presenting the Beed of &bsolute ,ale0 induced her itness &gnes o
•
hether or not &tt$. 6orral should be disbarred
•
•
'o. hile the prevailing facts of the case do not arrant so severe a penalt$ as disbarment2 the inherent poer of the 6ourt to discipline an errant member of the (ar must2 nonetheless2 be exercised because it can not be denied that respondent has violated his solemn oath as a la$er not to engage in unlaful2 dishonest or deceitful conduct. &tt$. 'apoleon 6orral is
•
received b$ &nnali"a ,uperio2 ,ecretar$ of &tt$. 'apoleon 6orral2 on Februar$ :42 199 That on -arch 142 1992 a o 'TI6E F &33E&L as filed in court b$ &tt$. 'apoleon 6orral2 a cop$ of hich as served on plaintiffs counsel That on -arch 1@2 1992 atS o about 1C% p.m. &tt$. 'apoleon 6orral came to the ffice of the 6ler8 of 6ourt2 (ranch 72 (acolod 6it$ and changed the date Februar$ :42 199 to Februar$ :92 199. Reali"ing later that there is no :9th in Februar$ 1992 he filed a RE3L T 3L&I'TIFF, -&'IFE,T&TI' claiming therein that he received the Becision not on the :9th in /sic0 Februar$ 199 but on the :th of Februar$ 199 That &tt$. 'apoleon 6orral o violated the proper norms*ethics as a la$er b$ tampering ith particularl$ b$ personall$ and manuall$ changing entries in the courts record ithout the 6ourts prior 8noledge and permission2 conduct unbecoming of a member of the 3hilippine (ar much more so because in so doing he as found to have been motivated b$ the desire of suppressing the truth. That on Hul$ 142 199 &tt$. o 'apoleon 6orral filed a -TI' T BI,-I,,2 among other things he stated that the court is ithout !urisdiction to tr$ and decide the case at issue. In his defense2 respondent claimed that the correction of the date as done on the paper prepared b$ him.
•
•
,/,3E'BEB from the practice of la for 'E )1+ E&R and ,TER'L &R'EB that a repetition of the same or similar offense ill be dealt ith more severel$. The ethics of the legal profession rightl$ en!oin la$ers to act ith the highest standards of truthfulness2 fair pla$ and nobilit$ in the course of his practice of la. & la$er ma$ be disciplined or suspended for an$ misconduct2 hether in his professional or private capacit$. 3ublic confidence in the la and la$ers ma$ be eroded b$ the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the (ar. Thus2 ever$ la$er should act and comport himself in such a manner that ould promote public confidence in the integrit$ of the legal profession. The primar$ ob!ective of administrative cases against la$ers is not onl$ to punish and discipline the erring individual la$ers but also to safeguard the administration of !ustice b$ protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of la$ers2 and to remove from the legal profession persons hose utter disregard of their la$erDs oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. & la$er ma$ be disbarred or suspended for misconduct2 hether in his professional or private capacit$2 hich shos him to be anting in moral character2 honest$2 probit$ and good demeanor or unorth$ to continue as an officer of the
•
•
•
•
•
that the correction as initiated and done in the presence and ith the approval of the 6ler8 of 6ourt and the other court emplo$ees. &ccording to respondent2 the correction as made because of t$pographical error he committed. uentl$ issued a Resolution on -arch :2 199 den$ing the motion for reconsideration and further pointed out that the pleading is improper because his remed$ as to file the same ith this 6ourt ithin fifteen )1%+ da$s from notice thereof pursuant to ,ection : of Rule 149# ( of the Rules of 6ourt. Thus2 on -a$2 192 19992 respondent filed ith the 6ourt a -otion for Reconsideration alleging # That there as no due process o or hearing hich have been re>uested b$ respondent from the beginning0 6omplainant rivera committed o per!ur$ hen he claimed that respondent altered the court records0
court.
That the municipal trial court in (acolod cit$2 under Hudge Ibae"2 committed misrepresentation of facts. Respondents claim that he as not afforded due process deserves scant consideration. The essence of due process is simpl$ an opportunit$ to be heard or2 as applied to administrative proceedings2 an opportunity to see a reconsideration of the action or rulin complained of. In fact a respondent in an administrative proceeding is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an$ investigating committee created to in>uire into charges filed against him. -e is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record2 and a reasonable opportunit$ to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committee. &tt$. (en!amin &lar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed ith the Labor &rbiter that dismissed the complaint. n appeal2 'LR6Ds First Bivision upheld the dismissal. In his -otion for Reconsideration ith -otion to Inhibit )-R-I+2 &tt$. &lar used improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the Labor &rbiter and the ponente of the 'LR6 decision. Hohnn$ 'g2 one of the respondents2 filed a disbarment case against &lar before the I(3 6ommission on (ar Biscipline for such misbehavior. &lar contended2 inter alia2 that the Rules of 6ourt*6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$ applies onl$ suppletoril$ at the 'LR6 hen the 'LR6 Rules of 3rocedure has no provision on disciplinar$ matters for litigants and la$ers appearing before it and that Rule J of the 'LR6 o
•
•
•
Hohnn$ 'g vs. &lar
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is a la$erDs misbehavior before the 'LR6 susceptible of the provisions of the 6ode of 3rofessional6onduct
•
•
•
The -R-I contains insults and diatribes against the 'LR62 attac8ing both its moral and intellectual integrit$2 replete ith implied accusations of partialit$2 impropriet$ and lac8 of diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit an$ !ustification. The assertion that the 'LR6 not being a court2 its commissioners2 not being !udges or !ustices and therefore not part of the !udiciar$ and that conse>uentl$2 the 6ode of Hudicial 6onduct does not appl$ to them is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla2 the 6ourt held that respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the 'LR62 he nonetheless remained a member of the (ar2 an oath#bound servant
•
•
Fudot vs. 6attle$a Land
•
•
Rules of 3rocedure provides for ade>uate sanctions against misbehaving la$ers and litigants appearing in cases before it. Finall$ he asserted that the Rules of 6ourt*6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$ does not appl$ to la$ers practicing at the 'LR62 the latter not being a court and that L&s and 'LR6 6ommissioners are not !udges nor !ustices and the 6ode of Hudicial 6onduct similarl$ do not appl$ to them2 not being part of the !udiciar$. Be La ,erna a re>uested for the inhibition of &ssociate Hustice Bante . Tinga claiming that Hustice Tinga2 ho as the ponente of the decision2 received 31 -illion from -r. Hohnn$ 6han in exchange for a favorable decision. Be la serna alleges ,0NNY CAN curtl$ told him that 6han alread$ given out 1- $o ,USTICE DANTE 0 TINGA in exchange for a favorable Becision in the case beteen Fudot and 6atltle$a land)-r. 6han is a representative of 6attle$a land+. &tt$. Be La ,erna said that Hustice Tinga abandoned the doctrine in the case Lim v2 Horge to accommodate -r. 6han.
•
•
*' &tt$. Be La ,erna is guilt$ of indirect contempt.
•
•
•
of the la2 hose first dut$ is not to his client but to the administration of !ustice and hose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulousl$ observant of la and ethics. Respondent has clearl$ violated 6anons and 11 of the 6ode of 3rofessional Responsibilit$.
•
•
•
is his sorn and moral dut$ to help build and not destro$ unnecessaril$ that high esteem and regard toards the courts so essential to the proper administration of !usticeM &s part of the machiner$ for the administration of !ustice2 a la$er is expected to bring to the fore irregular and >uestionable practices of those sitting in court hich tend to corrode the !udicial machiner$. Thus2 if he ac>uired reliable information that anomalies are perpetrated b$ !udicial officers2 it is incumbent upon him to report the matter to the 6ourt so that it ma$ be properl$ acted upon. &n omission or even a dela$ in reporting ma$ tend to erode the dignit$ of2 and the public;s trust in2 the !udicial s$stem. This is not to sa$2 hoever2 that as an officer of the court2 he cannot critici"e the court. It is a long recogni"ed and respected right of a la$er2 or an$ person2 for that matter2 to be critical of courts and magistrates as long as the$ are made in properl$ respectful terms and through legitimate channels. u$ i$ is $h! %ar#ina' %on#i$ion of a'' su%h %ri$i%ism $ha$ i$ sha'' ! ona fi#! an# sha'' no$ spi'' o"!r $h! -a''s of #!%!n%* an# propri!$*. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the dut$ of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that sub!ects a la$er to disciplinar$ action. In this case2 &tt$. Be La ,erna;s statements bear the badges of falsehood hile the common version of the itnesses ho
•
(ondoc vs. Hudge ,imbulan
•
•
•
•
This is a case filed b$ former Representative (ondoc charging Hudge &>uino#,imbulan ith partialit$2 gross ignorance of the la and gross misconduct in the handling of 6riminal case entitled 3eople v TotaanM. 6omplainant beailedC )1+ the respondentDs attempt to o have the cases settled in an off#the#recordM huddle ith the partiesD la$ers because she did not ant the accused to be administrativel$ suspended0 ):+ the respondentDs order to o fast trac8M the cases because the accused had been suspended upon the motion of the private prosecutors. The complainant then narrated the instances hen his la$ers ere alleged given a hard time and sub!ected to indignities b$ the respondent in her desire to fast trac8 the criminal case. n the other hand2 the respondent pointed out that an examination of the complaint ould readil$ sho that the private prosecutors2 &tt$s ,etephan Bavid and Lanee Bavid2 prepared it. ,tephen Bavid and Lanee Bavid2 ho ove a tale lies and distortions regarding the proceedings to cover up their on shortcomings as la$ers0 had the$ performed their dut$ as officers of the court and members of the bar2 the$ ould
•
' &tt$s. ,tephen and Lanee Bavid guilt$ of contempt.
•
•
•
•
disputed his statements is imbued ith the hallmar8s of truth. Be La ,erna;s declarations ere maliciousl$ and irresponsibl$ made. The$ exceeded the boundaries of decenc$ and propriet$. The libelous attac8 on the integrit$ and credibilit$ of Hustice Tinga tend to degrade the dignit$ of the 6ourt and erode public confidence that should be accorded to it. The ,6 dismissed the administrative complaint filed against the respondent and resolved the liabilit$ of the to &ttorne$s. The complainant )(ondoc+ never appeared in court2 it is reasonable to conclude that the to la$ers crafted the complaint and incorporated therein all the unfounded accusations against the respondent in order to conceal their inade>uacies in the handling of their clientDs case. To sa$ the least2 the complaint as most unfair to the respondent ho2 as the record shos2 as simpl$ 8eeping faith ith her avoed ob!ective of expediting the proceedings in her court b$2 among other measures2 re>uiring la$ers to be prepared at all times and to be fair and candid in their dealings ith the court. &s the court held in Racines v Hudge -orallos2 et al.2 a clients cause does not permit an attorne$ to cross the line beteen libert$ and license. La$ers must ala$s 8eep in perspective that since the$ are administrators of !ustice2 oath#bound servants of societ$2 their first dut$ is not to