Você está na página 1de 11

Case No.

1
Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in
litigation using abusive methods. She as aided by her husband, a layer. !he illegal entry
took place hile the case as pending in the C" # hile a rit of preliminary in$unction as in
force.
%eld: "tty. Flaminiano&s acts of entering the property ithout the consent of its occupants # in
contravention of the e'isting rit or preliminary in$unction # making utterances shoing
disrespect for the la # this Court, are unbecoming of a member of the (ar. "lthough he says
that they )peacefully* took over the property, such )peaceful* take+over cannot $ustify defiance
of the rit of preliminary in$unction that he kne as still in force. !hrough his acts, he has
flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. ,nder the Code of -rofessional
.esponsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting )activities aimed at defiance of the
la or at lessening confidence in the legal system.*
Case No. /
F"C!S: 0on De 1sasi and 0on De 1sasi 222 are father and sons respectively. !he elder 1sasi
ons a hacienda in Negros 3ccidental. De 1sasi 222 is employed in the hacienda as the farm
administrator. 2n November 145/, De 1sasi 222 underent surgery and so he missed ork. %e
as confined and hile he&s nursing from his infections he as terminated, ithout due process,
by his father. De 1sasi 222 filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the National 6abor
.elations Commission. %is father invoked that his son actually abandoned his ork.
2SS,7: 8hether or not De 1sasi 222 abandoned his ork.
%76D: No. %is absence from ork does not constitute abandonment. !o constitute
abandonment, there must be a.9 failure to report for ork or absence ithout valid or $ustifiable
reason, and b.9 a clear intention to sever the employer+employee relationship, ith the second
element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. No such
intent as proven in this case.
!he Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the layers for both camps failed to e'ert
all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties beteen their clients especially
considering that the parties involved are father and son. !his case may have never reached the
courts had there been an earnest effort by the layers to have both parties find an off court
settlement but records sho that no such effort as made. !he useful function of a layer is not
only to conduct litigation but to avoid it henever possible by advising settlement or ithholding
suit. %e is often called upon less for dramatic forensic e'ploits than for ise counsel in every
phase of life. %e should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than
a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.
.ule 1.:; of the Code of -rofessional .esponsibility e'plicitly provides that )<a9 layer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it ill admit of a fair settlement.*
(oth counsel fell short of hat as e'pected of them, despite their avoed duties as officers of
the court. 2n the same manner, the labor arbiter ho handled this regrettable case has been less
than faithful to the letter and spirit of the 6abor Code mandating that a labor arbiter )shall e'ert
all efforts toards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute ithin his $urisdiction.* 2f he ever
did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of the proceedings in this
controversy are barren of any reflection of the same.
Case No. =
F"C!S: "ppellant -a$ares as engaged in the business of buying and selling merchandise at her
stall and appelle ,dharam (a>ar # Co. as one of her creditors from hom she used to buy on
credit ready+made goods for resale.
Conse?uently, the company sued -a$ares for the recovery of a certain sum of money for the
goods delivered to her in good condition <the same having been sold9, but did not make the full
payment. -a$ares, hoever, moved for a bill of particulars, alleging that ithout hich she
ould not be able to meet the issues raised in the complaint. Such having been denied, appellant
moved for a motion for reconsideration. !he same as also denied and clogged the court for
seven years.
2ssue:
8hether or not there has been a faithful adherence <on the part of -a$ares& layer9 to .ule @,
section A of the .ules of Court.
%eld:
No, there as no faithful adhererence.
Clearly, there must be faithful adherence to .ule @, section A of the .ules of Court hich
provides that )the signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the
pleading and that to the best of his knoledge, information and belief, there is good ground to
support it*B and that it is not interposed for delay and e'pressly admonishes that )for a illful
violation of this rule an attorney may be sub$ected to disciplinary action.*
%ad appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to confess $udgment and ask from her
creditor the reasonable time she needed to discharge her laful indebtedness, the e'penses of
litigation that she has incurred ould have been more than sufficient to pay off her $ust debt to
appelle.
Case No. ;
F"C!S: 2n "pril 14@:, hile 7lino (ana as sleeping in his house, he as shot by .aymundo
Cadera. (ehind Cadera ere Carianito "ndres and Deneroso "ndres. 7lino (ana died before
he could be brought to the hospital but he made a dying statement herein he positively
identified Cadera as his shooter. !o of (ana&s sons ho ere at the house hen the shooting
happened identified Cadera as the shooter as ell as the to behind him. !he trial court
convicted the three for murder. !hey appealed. !hen Solicitor Deneral 7stelito Cendo>a
recommended the conviction of Cadera but also recommended the ac?uittal of Carianito and
Deneroso.
ISSUE: 8hether or not the conviction is correct.
HELD: No, insofar as Carianito and Deneroso is concerned E Cadera&s guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. (ut Carianito&s and Deneroso&s guilt ere not established. !heir mere
presence behind Cadera hen the latter shot and killed (ana is not constitutive of their guilt
ithout any shoing that they shared the criminal intent of Cadera. 2t must be shon that they
had knoledge of the criminal intention of the principal, hich may be demonstrated by
previous or simultaneous acts hich contributes to the commission of the offense as aid thereto
hether physical or moral. !his as absent in the case at bar.
!he Supreme Court lauded the Solicitor Deneral for recommending the ac?uittal of the to. !he
Supreme Court also emphasi>ed that the prosecutor&s finest hour is not hen he ins a case ith
the conviction of the accused. %is finest hour is still hen, overcoming the advocate&s natural
obsession for victory, he stands up before the Court and pleads not for the conviction of the
accused but for his ac?uittal. For indeed, his noble task is to prosecute only the guilty and to
protect the innocent.
Case No. A
City Fiscal of !acloban v 7spina
F"C!S: !his is a petition ?uestioning the validity of -residential Decree No. 15A:.
3n "pril /@, 1455 City Fiscal of !acloban filed a murder case against !esado and Niedo before
.!C (ranch @ ith 7spina as the $udge. " motion to transfer $urisdiction as filed by the
respondents. 3n 0une 4, 1455 the instant case as dismissed and referred to the court martials of
.egion 5. 3n 0une 1A, 1455 City Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that the trial
court has the $urisdiction over the case. (ut the same as denied. !he City Fiscal filed a petion
for revie on certiorari asking for the setting aside of the orders of the court and praying that the
same take cogni>ance of the case and try it on its merits.F
2ssue: 83N the City Fiscal has the authority to institute the petition and represent the herein
petitioner.
%76D: !he petition is denied. 3nly the SolDen has the personality to institute the case and to act
in its representative capacity if the criminal actions are brought to the C" or SC. "nd such
actions not initiated by the SolDen should be summarily dismissed. %e must represent the people
of the -hilippines and not the fiscal. !he fiscal can only represent the people of the -hilippines in
the prosecution of offenses before the trial court+metc,mtc,mctc and rtc.
Case No. G Cunar
F"C!S: "ppelant as charged ith grave slander in the C!C San Fernando 6a ,nionB the
decision of hich she as ordered to pay a fine ith subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the cost. "n appeal as filed thereafter. " decision as likeise rendered
finding the appellant guilty ordering her to pay a fine ith subsidiary imprisonment and directed
her to indemnify the offended party by ay of civil liability. She filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the same as denied by the court. "fter this, she filed her notice of appeal to
the SC on a ?uestion of la saying that there as no legal basis for the $udgment of conviction
for the private prosecutor ho tried the case had no legal personality to represent or present
evidence for the prosecution in vie of the reservation of civil action.
2SS,7: 83N that the private prosecutor ho tried the case has no legal representation hich
ould render the decision null and void.
%76D: !he petition is ithout merit.
Case No. @. (eriales
Facts: " case of three men ho ere charged for the murder of Saturnina on Sept. 1=, 14@;.
During the hearing on Nov. /G, 14@;, upon motion of the defense the Court ordered the re+
investigation of the case pending submission of the Fiscal of its reports. Couple of
postponements as made until Dec. 1=, 14@; hearing hen the Court proceeded ith the
arraignment and trial in the absence of the Fiscal and its report on re+investigation, and over the
disagreement of the defense. !he CF2 of 6eyte relied on the private prosecutor being authori>ed
by the Fiscal to present evidence and the defense presumed to have aived its right over its
disagreement. !rial then proceeded and the = found guilty of he offense. !hus, this appeal on the
constitutional re?uirement of due process.
2ssue: 8hether or not due process of la had been observed.
%eld: Constitutional due process as violated, thus, case remanded to CF2 for arraignment and
trial. Court should have held in abeyance the trial hile the report on e+investigation as still
pending. Consistent disregard of the defense ob$ection on the arraignment, trial, presentation of
private prosecutor&s evidence, and rendition of $udgment violates due process. -rosecutor or
Fiscal entrusted ith the investigation is duty bound to take charge until final termination. !hey
shall have direction and control of the criminal prosecution over private prosecutors.
Case H 5: D(!C case
Case H 4: Ducat case
Case H1:: Sarmiento v Cui
Case H 11: Soberano case
Facts:
Soberano filed a petition for disbarment alleging that after "tty. Iillanueva had induced her to
take part in a fake edding, the latter cohabited ith her and later lived ith her as husband and
ife. "s a conse?uence of this, she bore him to children, and subse?uently, Iillanueva
abandoned them. Soon thereafter, Soberano sent a letter to the court asking that no action be
taken on her petition until her mother has arrived and decided hether it should push though.
Soberano sent another letter saying that her mother has arrived and that the case must case.
Soberano again rote a letter saying that the filing of the petition as not sincerely her on
ish, and that she as finally ithdraing her complaint the last letter ritten by Soberano to
the court hoever, prayed that her motion to ithdra the petition be denied, since Iillanueva
had procured the motion by means of threat and intimidation.
2ssue: 8JN Iillanueva should be disbarred
%eld: N3. !he letters of Soberano to Iillanueva clearly indicated that intimate relations had
e'isted beteen them prior to the date hen the alleged fake edding occurred. !hese indicate
that there as no need for Iillanueva to stage a fake edding to induce Soberano to cohabit ith
him. Some of the letters shoed that Soberano reminded him of his promise to marry her after he
passed the bar. "s to hether the e'tra+marital relations beteen Soberano and Iillanueva
arrants disciplinary action, SC held that in light of the circumstances in this case, these acts are
neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, nor so unprincipled as to arrant a disbarment
of disciplinary action. "lso, distinguished members of the bar had attested to Iillanueva&s good
moral character. 3ne is no less than the 7'ecutive 0udge of the CF2 of Negros 3ccidental, here
Iillanueva is practices his profession. !he other is the Dean Contemayor of the "teneo College
of 6a. !he last one is %on. Duillermo Santos, former Chairman of "gricultural !enancy
Commission, then 0udge of CF2 and Court of "grarian .elations.
Case H 1/: 7ala Case
Facts: 0oselano Duevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the 2ntegrated (ar of the
-hilippines <2(-9 Committee on (ar Discipline <C(D9 against "tty. 0ose 7mmanuel C. 7ala
a.k.a. Noli 7ala <respondent9 for Kgrossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
layerLs oath.K
!he complainant first met respondent in 0anuary /::: hen his <complainantLs9 then+fiancee
2rene Co$e <2rene9 introduced respondent "tty. 7ala, a layer and a sportscaster, to him as her
friend ho as married to Cary "nn !antoco ith hom he had three children.
"fter his marriage to 2rene, complainant noticed that 2rene had been receiving from respondent
cellphone calls, as ell as messages some of hich read K2 love you,K K2 miss you,K or KCeet you
at Cegamall.K %e also noticed that 2rene habitually ent home very late at night or early in the
morning of the folloing day, and sometimes did not go home from ork. 8hen he asked about
her hereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parentsL house in (inangonan, .i>al or she as
busy ith her ork. Core so, complainant has seen 2rene and respondent together on to
occasions. 3n the second occasion, he confronted them folloing hich 2rene abandoned the
con$ugal house.
Coreover, Complainant later found, in the masterLs bedroom, a folded social card bearing the
ords K2 6ove 1ouK on its face, hich card hen unfolded contained a handritten letter dated
3ctober @, /:::, the day of his edding to 2rene. "lso, it as revealed that 2rene gave birth to a
girl in /::/ and 2rene named respondent in the Certificate of 6ive (irth as the girlLs father.
2n his anser, .espondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship
ith 2rene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship as lo profile and knon only to
the immediate members of their respective families. %e also said that his special relationship
ith 2rene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct
as ould be a ground for disbarment.
2ssue: 8hether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of 6a.
%eld: 17S. !he case at bar involves a relationship beteen a married layer and a married
oman ho is not his ife. 2t is immaterial hether the affair as carried out discreetly.
8hile it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of se'ual relations beteen to
unmarried adults is not sufficient to arrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is
not so ith respect to betrayals of the marital vo of fidelity. 7ven if not all forms of e'tra+
marital relations are punishable under penal la, se'ual relations outside marriage is considered
disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vos protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our las.
.espondent in fact also violated the layerLs oath he took before admission to practice la.
Furthermore, respondent violated .ule 1.:1 of Canon 1 of the Code of -rofessional
.esponsibility hich proscribes a layer from engaging in Kunlaful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct,K and .ule @.:= of Canon @ of the same Code hich proscribes a layer from
engaging in any Kconduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice la.K
"s a layer, respondent should be aare that a man and a oman deporting themselves as
husband and ife are presumed, unless proven otherise, to have entered into a laful contract
of marriage. 2n carrying on an e'tra+marital affair ith 2rene prior to the $udicial declaration that
her marriage ith complainant as null and void, and despite respondent himself being married,
he shoed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the la. "nd he betrayed his unfitness to
be a layer.
Case H 1=. Calo case
Case H1;. (ayot case
Facts: .espondent is charged ith malpractice for having published an advertisement in Sunday
!ribunal on 0une 1=, 14;= hich reads as follos E
)Carriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and the annoyance of delay or publicity
avoided if desired and marriage arranged to ishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for
the poor. 7verything confidential.
)6egal assistance service
1/ 7scolta, Canila
.oom 1:A, !el. /+;1+G:*
2ssue: 8hether or not the advertisement is ethical.
%eld: 2t is undeniable that the advertisement in ?uestion as a flagrant violation by the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a bra>en solicitation of business from the
public. Section /A of .ule 1/@ e'pressly provides among other things that )the practice of
soliciting cases at la for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.* 2t is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or
skill as a merchant advertises his ares. 6a is a profession and a trade. !he layer degrades
himself and his profession ho stoops to and adopts the practice of merchantilism by advertising
his services or offering them to the public. "s a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of
$ustice ith mercenary activities as the money+changers of old defiled the temple of 0ehovah.
)!he most orthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young layer is the
establishment of a ell+merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. !his
cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct.* <Canon /@, Code of
7thics.9
Case H 1G. 3ccena case
Facts
-etitioners, "tty. 0esus I. 3cceMa and "tty. Samuel C. 3cceMa, are the layers for the estate
e'ecutri', Crs. Necitas 3gan 3cceMa, and they had been representing the said e'ecutri' since
14G=, defending the estate against claims and protecting the interests of the estate. 2n order to
e'pedite the settlement of their deceased fatherLs estate.
-etitioners filed a Cotion for -artial -ayment of "ttorneysL Fees, dated November 15, 14GA,
asking the court to approve payment to them of -=:,:::.::, as part payment of their fees for
their services as counsel for the e'ecutri' since 14G=, and to authori>e the e'ecutri' to ithdra
the amount from the deposits of the estate and pay petitioners.
.espondent 0udge issued an order fi'ing the total fees of petitioners for the period Carch, 14G=
to December, 14GA at -/:,:::.::. -etitioners moved to reconsider that order. 3n 0anuary 1/,
14G@, respondent issued an order not only denying petitionersL Cotion for .econsideration but
also modifying the original order by fi'ing petitionersL fees for the entire testate proceedings at
-/:,:::.::. "lso, petitioners have filed petitions for indirect contempt of court against
intervenor 2. I. (inamira charging the latter of having made false averments in this Court.
%eld
!he rule is that hen a layer has rendered legal services to the e'ecutor or administrator to
assist him in the e'ecution of his trust, his attorneyLs fees may be alloed as e'penses of
administration. !he estate is, hoever, not directly liable for his fees, the liability for payment
resting primarily on the e'ecutor or administrator. 2f the administrator had paid the fees, he
ould be entitled to reimbursement from the estate. !he procedure to be folloed by counsel in
order to collect his fees is to re?uest the administrator to make payment, and should the latter fail
to pay, either to <a9 file an action against him in his personal capacity, and not as administrator, or
<b9 file a petition in the testate or intestate proceedings asking the court, after notice to all the
heirs and interested parties, to direct the payment of his fees as e'penses of administration.
8hichever course is adopted, the heirs and other persons interested in the estate ill have the
right to in?uire into the value, of the services of the layer and on the necessity of his
employment. 2n the case at bar, petitioner filed his petition directly ith the probate court.
8e find no rule of la or of ethics hich ould $ustify the conduct of a layer in any case,
hether civil or criminal, in endeavoring by dishonest means to mislead the court, even if to do
so might ork to the advantage of his client. !he conduct of the layer before the court and ith
other layers should be characteri>ed by candor and fairness. 2t is neither candid nor fair for a
layer to knoingly make false allegations in a $udicial pleading or to mis?uote the contents of a
document, the testimony of a itness, the argument of opposing counsel or the contents of a
decision. (efore his admission to the practice of la, he took the solemn oath that he ill do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor ittingly or illingly promote or sue any
false, groundless or unlaful suit, and conduct himself as a layer ith all good fidelity to
courts as ell as to his clients. 8e find that "tty. (inamira, in having deliberately made these
false allegations in his pleadings, has been recreant to his oath.
"tty. 2sabelo I. (inamira, ho appeared as intervenor in this case, is hereby declared guilty of
contempt and sentenced to pay to this Court ithin ten <1:9 days from notice hereof a fine in the
sum of Five %undred -esos <-A::.::9. Costs against intervenor.
Case H 15. Chave> case
2n 14GG, "tty. Iiola assisted Felicidad "lvendia et al in filing a petition against !eodoro Chave>
here he sought to have the "lvendias be declared as bona fide lessees in a land controversy.
Said petition as dismissed because of nonappearance by the "lvendias.
2n 14@@, "tty. Iiola assisted same clients in applying for an original registration of title over the
same land in controversy in 14GG. 2n said application, "tty. Iiola insisted that his clients ere the
true oners of said land because they ac?uired it by sale from !eresita Iistan ay back in 14/4.
Chave> then filed a disbarment case against "tty. Iiola. Chave> said that because of the
conflicting claims that Iiola prepared in behalf of his clients, he had illingly aided in and
consented to the pursuit, promotion and prosecution of a false and unlaful application for land
registration, in violation of his oath of office as a member of the (ar.
ISSUE: 8hether or not "tty. Iiola is in violation of the 6ayer&s 3ath.
HELD: 1es. Iiola alleged in an earlier pleading that his clients ere merely lessees of the
property involved. 2n his later pleading, he stated that the very same clients ere oners of the
same property. 3ne of these pleadings must have been falseB it matters not hich one. 8orse, he
offered no e'planation as regards the discrepancy.
" layer oes honesty and candor to the courts. 2t cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially
toards the courts, is essential for the e'peditious administration of $ustice. Courts are entitled to
e'pect only complete candor and honesty from the layers appearing and pleading before them.
"tty. Iiola as suspended for A months.
Case H 14. Naldivar case
Naldivar as the governor of "nti?ue. %e as charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations
of the "nti+Draft and Corrupt -ractices "ct. Don>ales as the then !anodbayan ho as
investigating the case. Naldivar then filed ith the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari,
-rohibition and Candamus assailing the authority of the !anodbayan to investigate graft cases
under the 145@ Constitution. !he Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and
Desist 3rder against Don>ale> directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing
informations against Naldivar.
Don>ales hoever proceeded ith the investigation and he filed criminal informations against
Naldivar. Don>ale> even had a nespaper intervie here he proudly claims that he scored one
on the Supreme CourtB that the Supreme Court&s issuance of the !.3 is a manifestation theta the
)rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult
for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Naldivar then filed a Cotion for Contempt against Don>ale>. !he Supreme Court then ordered
Don>ale> to e'plain his side. Don>ale> stated that the statements in the nespapers ere trueB
that he as only e'ercising his freedom of speechB that he is entitled to critici>e the rulings of the
Court, to point out here he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. %e also said, even
attaching notes, that not less than si' $ustices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask
him to )go slo* on Naldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: 8hether or not Don>ale> is guilty of contempt.
HELD: 1es. !he statements made by respondent Don>ale> clearly constitute contempt and call
for the e'ercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. %is statements necessarily
imply that the $ustices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements
constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly
debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of
administration of $ustice in the country.
Don>ale> is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. 8hat Don>ale> seems
unaare of is that freedom of speech and of e'pression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not
absolute and that freedom of e'pression needs on occasion to be ad$usted to and accommodated
ith the re?uirements of e?ually important public interests. 3ne of these fundamental public
interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of
$ustice. !here is no antinomy beteen free e'pression and the integrity of the system of
administering $ustice.
Don>ale>, apart from being a layer and an officer of the court, is also a Special -rosecutor ho
oes duties of fidelity and respect to the .epublic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment
and the repository of the $udicial poer in the government of the .epublic. !he responsibility of
Don>ale> to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in
the administration of $ustice is heavier than that of a private practicing layer.
Don>ale> is also entitled to critici>e the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide.
2n the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one here he alleged that members of the
Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to the Naldivar case.
!he Supreme Court suspended Don>ale> indefinitely from the practice of la.
Case H /:. Cillare case
Complainant obtained a favorable $udgment from the C!C hich ordered respondent&s client to
vacate the premises sub$ect of the e$ectment case. respondent as counsel, appealed the decision.
C" dismissed CoLs appeal from the decision of the .!C for failure to comply ith the proper
procedures. .espondent thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the
e'ecution of the $udgment rendered by the C!C adverse to his client.
%eld: S,S-7ND7D for <19 year. .ule 1/.:/. O " layer shall not file multiple actions arising
from the same cause. .ule 1/.:;. O " layer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
e'ecution of a $udgment or misuse court processes.
,nder Canon 14 of the Code of -rofessional .esponsibility, a layer is re?uired to represent his
client Kithin the bounds of the la.K !he Code en$oins a layer to employ only fair and honest
means to attain the laful ob$ectives of his client <.ule 14.:19 and arns him not to allo his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the case <.ule 14.:=9. 2n short, a layer is not a gun
for hire.
2t is unethical for a layer to abuse or rongfully use the $udicial process, like the filing of
dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating
and delaying the e'ecution of a $udgment.
" $udgment can be annulled only on to grounds: <a9 that the $udgment is void for ant of
$urisdiction or for lack of due process of la, or <b9 that it has been obtained by fraud.
0udging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the e'ecution of the same
$udgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping e'ists hen, by reason
of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another for a more favorable
resolution of his case.