77.

Go vs Abrogar
Facts:
Petitioner failed to pay his debt in the bank, prompting the bank to file a case against him. RTC rendered
decision in favor to the bank. Atty. Javier, withdrawn his services as counsel and was formally released by the
petitioner through the Notice of Permission only on Oct. 29, 1999.
On November 5,1999. petitioner, now presented by his new counsel Atty. Caneda Jr,. filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Oct. 7,1999 decision. When the RTC denied the motion, petitioner by his counsel filed
a Notice on Appeal. RTC denied the notice on appeal, on the ground that the reglementary period had already
expired. The decision became final and executory. RTC ordered the issuance of Writ of Execution against
petitioner.
On March 6, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. Petitoner argues that the parties had actually intended their liabilities to be joint, that he has
evidence to prove that his liability was less than what the RTC declared him liable for. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition for lack of merit.

Issue:
WON counsel acted according to his sworn responsibility to the court.
Held:
The Court dismayed the baseless attacks were assisted by counsel, who is an officer of the court. Under
Canon 11 of the Code of Professions Responsibility. A lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officer.
Atty. Caneda, Jr. should have known better that to permit irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge
Abrogar to be included in the pleadings. Allowing such statements to be made is against the lawyers oath.
Petitioner Go and Atty. Caneda, Jr. are strictly warned not to make disrespectful statements against a judge
without basis or evidence.

78. Maceda vs. Varquez

Facts:
Petioner Judge Maceda seeks the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman
(1) the Order dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the Supreme Court filed by
petitioner; and
(2) the Order dated November 22, 1951 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner
to file his counter-affidavit and other controverting evidences.
In his complaint, respondent Atty. Abierra alleged that the petitioner falsified his Certificate of Service when in
truth, petitioner knew that no decision had been rendered. Petitioner contends that Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction.
Issue:
WON the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of Judge
Certification
Held:
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the
lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
judges and court personnels compliance with all laws, and takes the proper administrative action against them
if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power.
Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court for determination
whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.

79. Ang vs. Castro

Facts:
Petitoner filed administrative complaint against Judge Castro for ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
discretion rendering unjust decision. Respondent upon knowing of the administrative complaint filed against
him, he ordered petitioner to appear before him, and to show cause why petitioner should not be guilty for
contempt, for contemptuous attitude towards him. Despite notice, petitioner failed to appear the scheduled
hearing for contempt. Respondent found him guilty for contempt and sentenced him to suffer five days
imprisonment.
Ang remained hiding; respondent Judge instituted criminal complaint for libel against petitioner for using
malicious, insolent and contemptuous language against him.
Petitioner upon knowing the criminal charges against him, he filed a Supplemental Prohibition against judge.
The court issued Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent Judge from conducting criminal complaint
for libel
Issue:
WON may be held liable for contempt on the basis of language he used in his letter complaint.
Held:
No, Respondent Judge Castro, in his comment, argues that failure of petitioner to appear, despite notice, on
the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge for the use of derogatory language in his two letters addressed
to the Office of the Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs and to this Court in an administrative complaint
against him, constitutes direct contempt as the acts actually impeded, embarrassed and obstructed him in the
administration of justice
Section 3 of the Rules 71 of the Rules of Court defines indirect contempt. The language found in the letters of
Petitipner, held as indirect contempt, but definitely not direct contempt.

80. Villasis vs Court of Appeals

Facts:
The case in the CFI rendered the decision in favor of Villasis upholding their action title. Petitioner-defendants
appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals. On June 25, 1970 Villasis received the notice through his
counsel Atty. Valente to submit their brief within the reglementary period of 45 days. Aug 10, 1970 last day of
filing Atty. Valente filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of the petitioner Villasis because he his having
employed in the Supreme Court and with a prayer that Atty. Tayco as a new counsel be given sufficient time to
file their brief. Atty. Tayco filed on his appearance August 18,1970.
Petitioner-defendants filed a motion to dismiss, because Villasis failed to file their comment at all. Atty. Valente,
contends that he has not received a copy of dismissal motion. Appellate court granted Atty. Valentes
withdrawing as counsel.
On June 25, 1971 after 11 months without having filed brief at all. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. It
was only then Atty. Tayco from almost a year inaction filed a motion for Dismissal of the Appeal on the ground
that he, a new counsel had not received the notice to file comment. The appellate court denied his motion
pointing out that Atty. Taycos appearance was entered Aug. 18, 1970.
Issue:
WON appellate court committed error in dismissing the appeal.
Held:
No, Atty. Tayco has shown no valid reason for their failure to file their comment for a year. They could not even
claim ignorance of the appellates notice to file brief since it had required withdrawing counsel Atty. Valente had
to secure his written conformity before granting his withdrawal as counsel. They had a year thereafter to make
sure that new counsel did attend to their appeal and did file their comment.

81. Achacoso vs Court of Appeals

Facts:
Petitioners counsel Rodrigo Nera file a motion for leave to file his reply within 15 days from notice, alleging
that there was need for such reply, In order that Honorable Court may completely informed the nature of
controversy which gave rise to the instant petition. The court granted such leave.
On the last day of filling of the reply, counsel asked for additional 15 days due to the pressure of work and
daily trial. The court granted the extension.
On the last day of filing of extended period of filing, counsel asked again another 15 days extension, the same
in his prior reason. The court granted the request.
The counsel requested for the third time and the court still granted the request, but the extended period of filing
lapsed without counsel having filed any reply.
Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review for lack of merit and required counsel to show cause
disciplinary action. Counsel filed an explanation, stating that he was not in a financial position to advance
necessary expenses for preparing and submitting the reply on account of his client failure to advance the sum
of money they agreed upon.
Issue:
WON the reason of counsel for his failure to file his comment is admissible.
Held:
The Court thus finds unsatisfactory the Attys explanation for his having allowed his extended period without
submitting the required comment. His in action unduly prevented and delayed for considerable period the
Courts prompt disposition.
The Court hereby administers a reprimand on Atty. Rodrigo M. Nera, with the warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely

82.Maila Pest Control Inc, vs Workmens Commission

Facts:
Mariano Abatrias clinical history showed that he was diagnosed a severe pulmonary tubercolosis. He acquired his
illness during his work because he was made to inhale dangerous fumes, since the atmosphere in the workplace
was polluted with poisonous chemical dust. He notified his employer through his general manager about his
condition but the employer refused to pay him. He filed a complaint against his employer. The Workmens
Compensation Commission considered the complaint and rendered decision against Manila Pest Control Inc.
The decision was sent to the petitioners counsel Atty. Corpuz , however he refused to receive the copy of the
decision alleging that he was no longer handling the case. Atty Corpuz, instructed the messenger to deliver the
copy of the decision to Atty. Camacho, since Atty. Camacho was not around to receive the decision the messenger
handed the copy of the decision to the receiving clerk therein.
Issue:
WON the counsel acted negligence of the said case.
Held:
Abatria proven that the illness he acquired was service connected. The petitioner alleges that if given the
opportunity for hearing it could interpose their valid defense. But the petitioner was not able to present their
evidence and was attributed to the conduct of his counsel. His counsel not does so.
The petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction is denied

83. US. Vs Ballena

Facts:
Ana Ramirez was charge of the crime of Perjury. The basis of the prosecution was her testimony, that the
cause of death of her husband was the blow given by Ciriaco Palleja. On the trial, Estafania Baruga, mother of
Ana testified that Fiscal Leoncio Ballena, at the time of the investigation into the cause of death of Anas
husband, attempted to rape her daughter Ana, and asked of the hand of the girl in marriage, but Baruga
refused the proposition of the fiscal because he was a married man.
The CFI charging with the crime of subordination of perjury against Leoncio Ballena. Upon this complaint the
defendant was duly tried, found guilty. From this sentence and judgment the defendant appealed, and now
insists that the testimony given by Estefania Barruga in that perjury case was immaterial to the issues involved
therein. If this contention be true, the defendant is not guilty.
Issue:
WON the testimony of Efipania Baruga material to the issue involved in the criminal case against her daughter.
Held:
The term 'material matter' means the main fact which was the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which
tends to prove that fact, or any fact, or circumstance, which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony
relative to such inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
The fiscal was the moving party in the perjury case and it was upon his sworn complaint that Ana was
prosecuted. If he should have attempted to prosecute Ana after having committed these acts the court would
not only have disbelieved the fiscal, testifying as a witness, but it would have looked upon the whole
prosecution as a fabrication.
The judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

84. The Philippine National Bank vs Uy Teng Piao

Facts:
On September 9, 1924, the CFI rendered a judgment in favor of the Philippine National Bank and against Uy
Teng Piao. The court ordered the defendant to deposit said amount with the clerk of the court within three
months from the date of the judgment, and in case of his failure to do so that the mortgaged properties should
be sold at public auction in accordance with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.
Uy Teng Piao failed to comply with the order of the court, and the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the two
parcels of land at public auction to the Philippine National Bank
The two parcel of land were sold, but the amount was not satisfying the credit of Uy Teng Piao, The bank
brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance. One of the attorneys for the plaintiff testified
that the defendant renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land because a friend of the defendant was
interested in buying it.
Issue:
Whether or not lawyers shall avoid being a witness for a client
Held:
Yes. With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, we should like to observe that although the law does
not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that
counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active
management of the case.

85. Autria vs Masaquel

Petitioner was one of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned Civil Case against Pedro Bravo for the recovery of
three parcels of land. After trial, respondent Judge rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs the owners of the
three parcels of land in question and ordering the defendant to vacate the lands and pay the plaintiffs
damages
On May 23, 1963, Atty. Mariano C. Sicat, a former assistant of respondent Judge entered his appearance as
the new counsel for defendant Pedro Bravo. Atty. Sicat, filed a supersedes bond to stay the execution of the
judgment, and respondent Judge granted the stay of execution, over the objection of plaintiffs, and ordered the
sheriff to restore the possession of the lands
On August 24, 1963, pending the approval of the defendant's amended record on appeal, Atty. Sicat filed a
motion for new trial and to set aside the judgment and, over the objection of plaintiffs, the respondent Judge
granted the said motion.
Before the opening of the court's session, Atty. Daniel Macaraeg, counsel for petitioner, talk privately the
respondent judge and verbally transmitted to him the request of petitioner that he inhibit himself from further
hearing the case upon the ground that the new counsel for the defendant, Atty. Mariano C. Sikat, was his
former associate. The respondent Judge, however, rejected the request because, according to him, the reason
for the request of his inhibition is not one of the grounds for disqualification of a judge provided for in the Rules
of Court.
Domingo Austria, in the premises, as offensive, insulting and a reflection on the integrity and honesty of the
Presiding Judge of this Court and shows his lack of respect to the Court, respondent Judge found petitioner
guilty of direct contempt
Issue:
WON Atty. Daniel Macaraeg, counsel for petitioner acted in good faith
Held
Atty. Macaraeg, approach respondent Judge and suggest to him to refrain from hearing the case on the new
trial, precisely in order that respondent Judge might not be embarrassed or exposed to public odium.
When petitioner requested respondent Judge to inhibit himself from further trying the case upon the ground
that the counsel for the opposite party was the former associate of the respondent Judge, petitioner did so
because he was impelled by a justifiable apprehension which can occur in the mind of a litigant who sees what
seems to be an advantage on the part of his adversary; and that the petitioner made his request in a manner
that was not disrespectful, much less insulting or offensive to the respondent Judge or to the court.
Decision is set aside

86. Nestle Phil vs Sanchez

The Union of Filipro Employees, set up their quarters in front of Supreme Court. They constructed temporary
shelter along sidewalk. They waived their slogan, placards and criticized the court with the use of loud
speakers. Unions counsel, Atty. Espinas had been informed by the court that the Union must cease
immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt and the Court will not entertain their petition as long as
they did not cease their protest.
The Court issued a resolution requiring Atty. Espinas, et al to appear before the Court. Atty. Espinas, in behalf
of the Union Leaders apologized to the Court for their act, together with the issuance that they will not be
repeated. That he already explained to the leaders of the Union that any delay in the resolution of their cases is
usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and he already explained to the members of the Union that
what they did was wrong.
Issue:
WON the protest of the Union represented by Counsel Atty. Espinas is direct contempt to the Court.
Held:
The duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, Union leaders are not aware that even as the rights of free speech
and of assembly are protected by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice
through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer within the Constitutional
protection, nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt of
court.
However the Court accept apologies offered by the respondents at the time of the imposition of the sanction
warranted by the contemptuous acts
The contempt charges against respondents are DISMISSED

87. In re de Vera (2003)

Facts:
A Petiton to disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera, on legal and moral grounds, from being elected IBP Governor for
Eastern Mindanao. Petitioners alleged that respondent De Vera had transferred his IBP membership from the
Pasay, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to Agusan del Sur Chapter, stressing that he
indeed covets the IBP presidency.The transfer of IBP membership to Agusan del Sur, the petitioners went on,
is a brazen abuse and misuse of the rotation rule, a mockery of the domicile rule and a great insult to lawyers
from Eastern Mindanao for it implies that there is no lawyer from the region qualified and willing to serve the
IBP
Respondent de Vera argues that the Court has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, contending that the
election of the Officers of the IBP, including the determination of the qualification of those who want to serve
the organization, is purely an internal matter, governed as it is by the IBP By-Laws and exclusively regulated
and administered by the IBP.
Issue:
1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction over the present controversy
Held: Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and the legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court
The IBP By-Laws, the document invoked by respondent De Vera in asserting IBP independence from the
Supreme Court, ironically recognizes the full range of the power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the
IBP.

91. LEDESMA V CLIMACO

FACTS:
Ledesma is counsel of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election Registrar by
COMELEC Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar
would require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de
officio of the accused
ISSUE:
WON the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed
HELD:
No. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel . There
is no excuse for him to neglect from his obligation as member of the bar, who expects to remain in good
standing, should fulfill. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel. He ought to know that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as counsel requires a high
degree of fidelity.