Gamboa, Queenzel

3B

Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum
FACTS:
Atty. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano- Endriano were indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law when they were found guilty of professional misconduct when they misquoted or misused
constitutional provisions in their pleadings to impute unjust acts to the members of the Court. However,
Atty. Endraino was reinstated because of lesser culpability on her part.
ISSUE: WON the misuse of constitutional provisions is a breach of standards of being a member in good
standing
HELD:
Yes. However, the indefinite suspension was lifted because for a period of 2 years, Atty. Lozano did not
do any act that would indicate that he acted in any unscrupulous practices unsuitable for him to be a
member of the bar.












Gamboa, Queenzel
3B

SY VS. DINOPOL
FACTS:
This case arose to a land which was mortgage to the mortgagee, Metrobank. The latter foreclosed the
mortgaged land and won as the highest bidder. Petitioner then filed an Annulment and/or Declaration
of Nullity of the real estate mortgage. The respondent judge inhibited himself to the case before him on
the ground that he received a call both from the parties, and claimed that he wanted to avoid being
charged with partiality. However, notwithstanding his inhibition on the said case, he nonetheless grants
the petition of Metrobank for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the disputed land. Petitioner
charged the respondent judge of gross ignorance of law and conduct of unbecoming a member of the
judiciary. The latter charged has been founded on the ground that respondent judge received
commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of judges house.
Hence, this case.
ISSUE: WON respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of law and conduct of unbecoming a member
of the judiciary
HELD:
On the ground of gross ignorance of law, judge Dinopol cannot be held responsiibile for he acted within
the ambit of law and his jurisdiction. However, with respect to the conduct of unbecoming a judge, he is
found guilty by the OCA of such charge.
Judge Dinopol violated Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 3, Section 1 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2,
and section 1 of Canon 4 of New code of Judicial Conduct.