CARLET VS CA, 275 SCRA 110

FACTS:
Carlet is a Special Administrator of the Estate of Sevillo through Atty.
Modesto Jimenez filed before the Trial Court an action for reconveyance of
property of Sevillo. Zarate then moved to dismiss such action invoking res judicata
since it was the same facts that had been settled by the Trial Court, Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court.
The action was dismissed by the Trial Court and ordered Atty. Jimenez
regarding Forum Shopping. Atty. Jimenez appealed it to Court of Appeals, but to no
avail.

Issue:
Whether or not the action of Atty. Jimenez is proper.

Ruling:
With respect to the issue of forum shopping, for which the trial court
ordered counsel for petitioners, Atty. Jimenez, to explain why he should not be
cited in contempt, this applies only in two or more cases are still pending.
Clearly, despite the knowledge of final judgments in the civil cases, counsel
persisted in filing the case at bar for reconveyance. Since the case is barred, there
was no other pending case to speak of when it was filed in July 1991. Thus, the
non-forum shopping rule is not violated.
What he did in filing this present action to relitigate the title to and partition
over the Lot No. 981 violates Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for lawyers which states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith in the
court. Rule 10.01 of the same Canon states that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood
nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Counsel’s act of
filing a new case involving essentially the same cause of action is likewise abusive
of the court’s processes and may be viewed as improper conduct tending to
directly impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice.
 DEL ROSARIO VS CHINGCUANGCO, 18 SCRA 1156

Facts:
The CAR rendered a decision evicting Del Rosario from the land which he
leases from Imperio. However, the former refused to vacate the land since the
latter does not want to refund him of the improvement he had done to the
property. Del Rosario, further, filed a motion before the SC to stay such execution.
Due this, Imperio filed a petition to cite Del Rosario’s counsel in contempt since
said counsel quoted a non-existing SC decision. However, it was discovered that
such belief was brought by a mere typographical error.

Issue:
Whether or not the conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel deserves a disciplinary
action.

Ruling:

No. The conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel does not deserve a disciplinary
action.

Petitioner’s counsel obviously had in mind this Court’s decision in Paz

Ongsiako Inc. vs Celestino Abad, L-12147, July 30, 1957. Although he cites as
docket number L-121447 instead of L-12147, the same is plainly but a slight
typographical mistake not sufficient to place him in contempt, especially because
the names of the parties were given correctly. As to the said interpretation of the
Court’s decision in said case, or of what the ruling therein “ineffect” created,
established or confirmed, the same are mere arguments fully within the bounds of
earnest debate, rather than deception urged upon this Court. The first petition for
contempt is without merit.
 ANALYSIS

Canon 10: A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.
A lawyer is an officer of the court, thus he represents the court and should
therefore be an instrument to advance the ends of justice. He has the duty to
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. He must be truthful and a minister
of truth. He should not mislead the court or allow the court to be misled by an
artifice.
In the case of Carlet vs CA, it shows that Atty. Jimenez did not act according
to the oath that he took that he must do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
the same in court and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all the good fidelity of the court. Thus, he failed to
preserve the faith in the courts.
In Rule 10.02 of Canon 10, a lawyer is prohibited from knowingly misquoting
or misinterpreting contents of a paper, language or argument of opposing counsel
and a text of a decision or authority. It is also prohibited knowingly citing as a law,
a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or asserting a
fact that which has not been proved.
However, just like in the case of Del Rosario vs Chingcuangco, a mere
typographical error in citation of an authority is not contemptuous. But if the
misquotation is intended, the lawyer is subject for disciplinary action.

Leonora Armi Dianne M. So