Page 123 MALIGAYA VS DORONILLA

FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a
hearing, he said we had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him
(Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the cases. Do with that understanding, he even
retired and he is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla was then charge of
misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of
justice.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of
canon 10 of the code of professional responsibility.
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory
tenets of ethical conduct. Not only violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of an in court, but also his acts infringed on every
lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law. He was suspended from practice of law for
two months.
Page 183 JARDIN VS ATTY. VILLAR JR.
FACTS: Atty. Villar Jr. was the lawyer of Jardin in a Civil Case. However, the said case
was dismissed for the lawyers failure to formally offer documentary exhibits
despites extensions given by the court. It prejudices his client. This led to this case
for disbarment.
ISSUE: WON Canon 12 was violated of Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING: Atty. Villar Jr. has fallen short of the competence and diligence required for
every member of the Bar. Canon 12 a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider
it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of Justice.
Page 133 NG vs. Atty.Alar
Facts:The case stemmed from a labor case filed by the employees of the Ng
Company against its employers. Theemployees alleged that they did not receive
their service incentive leave pay from their employers due to the employersclaim
that the employees conducted a strike at the Companys premises which hampered
its ingress and egress. The casewas referred to the labor arbiter and the it was
found that the employees have been paid their service incentive leave pay.The
employees appealed to NLRC but the latter affirmed the labor arbiters decision. In
reaction to this, Atty.Alar filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit
(MRMI) wherehe used scandalous, offensive, andmenacing languages to support his
complaint. He said that the labor arbiter was cross-eyed in making his findings
offact and that Commissioner Dinopol acted in the same manner with malice thrown
in when he adopted the findings of thelabor arbiter. That the retiring commissioners

of NLRC circumvent the law and jurisprudence when the money claiminvolved in the
case is substantial. According to Alar, such acts constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Issue. W/N Alar violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:YES. Alar has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the CPR. His actions erode
the publics perception of the legal profession. The MRMI contains insults and
diatribes against the NLRC,
attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations o
f partiality, impropriety and lack ofdiligence. Alar used improper and offensive
language in his pleadings that does not admit any justification.Though a lawyers
language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befittingthe dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary
language is proscribed if we are to promote highesteem in the courts and trust in
judicial administration.
Page 125 - Manuel S. Sebastian v. Atty. Emily A. Bajar (2007)
Facts:Bajar worked for the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. She represented Tanlioco, an agricultural lessee in
a land owned, and respondent in an ejectment case filed, by petitionerSebastians
wife. The RTC rendered judgment against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion
order converting theland use from agricultural to residential. The CA and SC
affirmed the ejectmen. Bajar, despite the finality of theejectment order, filed with
the RTC a complaint for specific performance to produce the conversion order. The
RTCdismissed on the ground of res judicata and lack of cause of action. Bajar then
filed another case for maintenance ofpossession , now with the DAR-Adjudication
Board (DARAB).Sebastian now filed an administrative case with the SC for
disbarment against Bajar for violation of Rule10.03 of the CPR since she misused
the rules of procedure through forum-shopping toobstruct the administration of
justice.
ISSUE : W/N Bajar was guilty of violating Rule 10.3 regarding the misuse of rules of
procedure toobstruct the administration of justice.
HELD: YES. The fact that she merely availed of all the legal remedies available to
her client is not an excuse.While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of
their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients rights, they should not forget
that they are first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Bajars act of filing cases
with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling, affirmed by the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court, is beyond the bounds of the law.