Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
sequestration cases.
The matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central
Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK through
the courts and in filing the necessary petition in the then Court of First
Instance.
The subject matter ofthe special proceeding, therefore, is not the
same nor is related to but is different from the subject matter in the
civil case. The civil case involves the sequestration of the stocks owned
by respondents Tan, et al ., in Alied Bank on the alleged ground that
they are ill-gotten. The case does not involve the liquidation of
GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank.
MECARAL V. VELASQUEZ
(April 23, 2010, A.C. No. 8392 [ Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175], Per
Curiam,June 29, 2010)
Complainant was hired as a secretary by the atty. Velasquez who later
became his common-law wife. Mecaral was later brought to Upper San
Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious group
known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines. Later,
Mecaral returned home and upon knowing, Velasquez brought her back
to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured,
brainwashed and injected her with drugs. Her mother, Delia Tambis
Vda. De Mecaral (Delia),having received information that she was
weak, pale and walking barefoot along the i the mountainous area of
Caibiran caused the rescue operation of Mecaral. Thus, Mecaral filed a
disbarment complaint against respondent and charged the latter with
bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H.Azur on August 2,
1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma.
Shirley G. Yunzal.
Issue: whether respondent is guilty of grossly immoral and acts which
constitute gross misconduct
Held: WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is
DISBARRED, and his name ORDEREDSTRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and ordered to be
part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Supreme Court of the Philippines.Ruling: Investigating Commissioner of
the CBD found that [respondents] acts of converting his secretary into
a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are
grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can
countenance. The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant
is gross misconduct [which] only a beast may be able to do. Certainly,
the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
estafa case. There was no need to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor
Salanga since they were not parties in the business venture. Their
inclusion in the complaint was improper and highly questionable and
the suit was filed to harass both of them. In filing the civil suit, Atty.
Chiong violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. IBP recommended 2 years suspension
SC: affirmed IBPs recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned
some alternative remedies Atty. Chiong could have taken if his
allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have filed a motion for
reinvestigation or motion for reconsideration of Salangas decision to
file the information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa case was
also available if it was indeed filed without basis.
Relevant Provisions:
Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Lawyers Oath not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same.
saberon versus larong,a.c.no.6567,april 16,2008(LEGAL
ETHICS)
Facts:
Complainant saberon charged atty. larong respondent of grave
misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive language in
pleadings filed before the BSP.In An anwer filed by respondent atty.
larong with affirmative defenses to the petition stating inter alia,that
this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by
plaintiff(complainant) and his wife to coerce the bank and mr.bonpin
for financial gain.
Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious,viscous
and bereft of any factual or legal basis" complainant filed the present
complaint.
By res.,the court referred the case to IBP for investigation.IBP
Investigating commissioner held that the word "blackmail" connotes
something sinister and criminal.Unless the person accused thereof is
criminally charged with extortion,he added,it would be imprudent,if not
offensive,to characterize that persons act as blackmail.In view
thereof,he recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross
misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30days.IBP
Board of Governor disapproved the recommendation and instead
dismissed the case for lack of merit
Issue:
free. A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires but also
entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client
what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to
enable the latters cause to succeed. In this case, respondent may not
be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the
respondents acts complained of were committed out of his overzealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients
who were poor and uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication
and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from
the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent
should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of
the court. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the
duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the
law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of
truth and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in
every exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from
unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by
misusing court processes.