Ting Dumali v Torres Topic: Canon 10 Observe Candor, Fairness, and Good Faith Doctrine: Doctrine: Lawyer is the servant of law and the administrator of justice and should should not conduct conduct in an unlawful unlawful deceitful manner and if he does so then is unt in the profession Law: Law: Rule 10.01 — 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artice. Rule 7.03 — 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reects reects on his tness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession Facts: Facts: !. "etitioner "etitioner led against against Atty #orres on alledge alledge false testimony and participation in the $eed of %&trajudicial 'ettlement with proting through forgery, and violating the lawyers oath. (. #he petitioner petitioner states that the respondent respondent whom was the husband of her sister performed the following acts: "articipated and consented to the perjury of the $eedof lot !)*+ wherein it appears as if the respondents respondents wife and his sister in law was the only heirs of deceased parents parents of the petitioner and presented a transfer of •
title for the registration of deeds in -avite to the respondens wife and sister in law. "articipated "articipated in the forjery nowing petitioner was still in /taly of another lot !+01 and sold through falsication the said lot to Antel 2oldings "ayment /n 3udicial 4econstitution of the 1rd lot !+0) 4egistration of $eeds led by repondents wife and sister in law, respondent provided false statements that his wife and sister in law where the only heirs /n re5uesting full payment of 1 rd lot !+0) on 6ov (0 !77+ within ! month under the pretense of reconstitution to be released in ! month which was impossible since reconstitution reconstitution started only on August !( !778 !. $efens $efense e stat state: e: 2e cant be faulted since he and his wife and sister in law had no intent to prot from sale of !)*+ Lot !+01, he did not participate in $eeds %&ecution and believed in good faith that petitioner had agreed with his wife #hat misrepresentation in Lot !+0) was simply an oversight and his signature was pro9forma since lot was parapherical property of his wife reconstitution reconstitution is usually uncontested and granted by court as well as the claim of reconstitution to be maid on 6ov !77+ was on assurance of -ler of -ourt Issue: Issue: 6 4espondent should be disbarred< Ruling: Ruling: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4espondent was consulted of such falsication of $eeds on =arch !77) and instead of advising against he presented such to the register of deeds nowingly well of the falsication of documents. #he concealment of other heirs was apparent being the husband of one of the + heirs but misrepresenting it to being only (. 2e presented an A>davit of Loss notari?ed by him to evidence reconstitution wherein it admits the wife was in possession of said lot which was false %vidence of his letter attesting payment for the reconstitution was presented ! year after sending the letter showing lac of candor and dishonesty
Masinsin v Alpano Topic: Canon 10 Observe Candor, Fairness, and Good Faith Doctrine: Lawyers at!: @ / will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; / will not delay any mans cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my nowledge and discretion with all good delity as well to the courts as to my clients and / impose upon myself this obligation voluntary, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion@ Facts: /n an ejectment suit wherein the petitioner was the respondent, the =#- ordered to vacate said premise and since there was no appeal then the act became nal and e&ecutor on Aug ) !7*). n ct 8, an annulment of judgment of lease contract was led by the petitioners to nullify the past ejectment judgement but was dismissed and a>remed in the lower courts and the -A. #he petitioner appealed to the -ourts which remanded the suit to the 4#- for e&ecution of demolition however upon demolition the 4#issued a restraining order following petition of centiorari but was soon dimissed as well. •
•
•
Bnfa?ed by the dismissals, petitioner led again centiorari for declaratory relief as such =#- issued restraining order. "etitioner continued to delay ling a motion of an alias writ with =#- but was soon dismissed as well. "etitioner now contends =#- lost jurisdiction upon said property being proclaimed as priority development of 6ational 2ouseing authority of "$ (0!+. #he -ourt ruled such petition was meritless concluding the 62A has not ac5uired said property but now raises the evident predilecation of petitioner to le pleadings which where of utter lac of merits with deliberate intent to prolong the proceeding. I""#$: 6 the cousel of the petitioner is disbarred< 4uling: C%' Four times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel, try to nullify the same =#- decision before diDerent branches of the court, triEing with judicial processes. 6ever, again, should this practice be countenanced. e have since emphasi?ed in no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an o>cer of the court, which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an e&ercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power. •
•
•
•
•
