C.

To the Courts

1. Candor, fairness and good faith towards the courts

JOHNNY NG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR,

RESPONDENT.

FACTS
Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor
case filed with the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. On
appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the dismissal. In his Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar used
improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the
Labor Arbiter and the ponente of the NLRC decision. Johnny Ng,
one of the respondents, filed a disbarment case against Alar before
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for such misbehavior.

Alar contended, inter alia, that the Rules of Court/Code of

Professional Responsibility applies only suppletorily at the NLRC
when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinary
matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it and that Rule
X of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions
against misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in cases
before it. Finally he asserted that the Rules of Court/Code of
Professional Responsibility does not apply to lawyers practicing at
the NLRC, the latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC
Commissioners are not judges nor justices and the Code of Judicial
Conduct similarly do not apply to them, not being part of the
judiciary.
ISSUE

Is a lawyer’s misbehavior before the NLRC susceptible of the

provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct?

HELD

The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC,

attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with
implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence.
Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings
that does not admit any justification.

The assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners,
not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the judiciary
and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply
to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that
respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the
NLRC, he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-
bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but
to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and
must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.

Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. His actions erode the public’s
perception of the legal profession.
2. Respect for courts and judicial officers
RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S.
SORREDA.

Facts:
Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice
over his frustrations of the outcome of his cases decided by the
Supreme Court. The letter contained derogatory and malignant
remarks which are highly insulting. The Court accorded Atty.
Sorreda to explain, however, instead of appearing before the court,
he wrote another letter with insulting remarks as the first one. The
court was thus offended with his remarks.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of contempt due
to the remarks he has made in his letters addressed to the court.

Held:
Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to
embarrass the court or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a
pleading. Their employment serves no useful purpose. On the
contrary, they constitute direct contempt of court or contempt in
facie curiae and a violation of the lawyer’s oath and a transgression
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As officer of the court,
Atty. Sorreda has the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of
the courts and to promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice.[24] No less must this be and with greater reasons in the
case of the country’s highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last
bulwark of justice and democracy
Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice, to which his client’s
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascription can hardly be justified
nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility
among members of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that
must at no time be lost to it. Hence, Atty. Sorreda has transcended
the permissible bounds of fair comment and constructive criticism
to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. Free
expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one’s
irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy
this Court and its magistrates. Thus, ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA is
found guilty both of contempt of court and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility amounting to gross misconduct as an
officer of the court and member of the Bar.

3. Assistance in the speedy and efficient administration of justice

BANOGAN V. ZERNA

Facts:
The original decision in this case was rendered by the cadastral
court way back on February 9, 1926, sixty one years ago. A motion
to amend that decision was filed on March 6, 1957, thirty one years
later. This was followed by an amended petition for review of the
judgment on March 18, 1957, and an opposition thereto on March
26, 1957. On October 11, 1971, or after fourteen years, a motion
to dismiss the petition was filed. The petition was dismissed on
December 8, 1971, and the motion for reconsideration was denied
on February 14, 1972. The petitioners then came to us on certiorari
to question the orders of the respondent judge. The respondent
court dismissed the petition for review of the decision rendered in
1926 on the ground that it had been filed out of time, indeed thirty
one years too late. Laches, it was held, had operated against the
petitioners.
The petitioners contend that the said judgment had not yet become
final and executory because the land in dispute had not yet been
registered in favor of the private respondents. The said judgment
would become so only “after one year from the issuance of the
decree of registration.” If anyone was guilty of laches, it was the
private respondents who had failed to enforce the judgment by
having the land registered in their the pursuant thereto.
For their part, the private respondents argue that the decision of
February 9, 1926, became final and executory after 30 days, same
not having been appealed by the petitioners during that period.
They slept on their rights for thirty one years before it occurred to
them to question the judgment of the cadastral court.
It is shown that it is against their contentions and that under this
doctrine they should not have delayed in asserting their claim of
fraud. Their delay was not only for thirty one days but for thirty
one years. Laches bars their petition now. Their position is clearly
contrary to law and logic and to even ordinary common sense.

Issue:
W/N petitioners are already barred by laches.

Held:
YES. This Court has repeatedly reminded litigants and lawyers alike
that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere,
and it is assent essential to an effective and efficient administration
of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning
party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of
the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme
calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put
an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to
prolong them. There should be a greater awareness on the part of
litigants that the time of the judiciary, much more so of this Court,
is too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts, far from
commendable, to evade the operation of a decision final and
executory, especially so, where, as shown in this case, the clear
and manifest absence of any right calling for vindication, is quite
obvious and indisputable.
One reason why there is a degree of public distrust for lawyers is
the way some of them misinterpret the law to the point of distortion
in a cunning effort to achieve their purposes. By doing so, they
frustrate the ends of justice and at the same time lessen popular
faith in the legal profession as the sworn upholders of the law.
While this is not to say that every wrong interpretation of the law
is to be condemned, as indeed most of them are only honest errors,
this Court must express its disapproval of the adroit and intentional
misreading designed precisely to circumvent or violate it. As
officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the
proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty
by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the
judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is.
A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when
a case, such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely
clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance
the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for
sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.

SEBASTIAN V. BAJAR
FACTS
Bajar was a lawyer or the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of
the DAR who represented Fernando Tanlioco in numerous cases
which raised the same issues. Tanlioco was an agricultural lessee
of a land owned by Sebastian’s spouse and sister-in-law
(landowners). The landowners filed an Ejectment case against
Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the land use from
agricultural to residential. The RTC rendered judgment ordering
Tanlioco’s ejectment subject to the payment of disturbance
compensation. This was affirmed by the CA and SC. Bajar, as
counsel, filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the
conversion order. RTC dismissed this due to res judicata and lack
of cause of action. Bajar again filed another case for Maintenance
of Possession with the DAR Adjudication Board which raised the
same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation.
Manuel S. Sebastian filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Emily A. Bajar (respondent) for “obstructing, disobeying, resisting,
rebelling, and impeding final decisions of Regional Trial Courts, the
Court of Appeals and of the Honorable Supreme Court, and also for
submitting those final decisions for the review and reversal of the
DARAB, an administrative body, and for contemptuous acts and
dilatory tactics.”
The Court issued a resolution requiring Bajar to comment on the
complaint lodged against her. After a 2nd Motion for Extension,
Bajar finally submitted her Comment which was alleged to not
confront the issues raised against her. The Court required Bajar to
submit a Rejoinder but failed, and was later ordered to show cause
why she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for such
failure. The Court referred the case to the IBP for hearing and
decision. The IBP ruled that Bajar be “SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY
from the practice of law for Unethical Practices and attitude
showing her propensity and incorrigible character to violate the
basic tenets and requirements of the Code of Professional
Responsibility rendering her unfit to continue in the practice of
law.” However, Bajar continued to practice law despite the decision
claiming that she did not receive a copy of the order.
ISSUE
Whether Bajar violated the Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD
YES.
Respondent’s act of filing cases with identical issues in other
venues despite the final ruling which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court is beyond the bounds of the law.
Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts.
Respondent, acting as Tanlioco’s counsel, filed cases for Specific
Performance and Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of
the decision in the Ejectment case which involves the same issues.
The Court held that “an important factor in determining the
existence of forum-shopping is the vexation caused to the courts
and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs.[72] Indeed, “while a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of
truth and administration of justice.” It is evident from the records
that respondent filed other cases to thwart the execution of the
final judgment in theEjectment case. In this case, respondent has
shown her great propensity to disregard court orders.
Respondent’s acts of wantonly disobeying her duties as an officer
of the court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the legal
profession. However, the Court will not disbar a lawyer if it finds
that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.
Bajar was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
THREE YEARS effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same.
4. Reliance on merits of his cause and avoidance of any impropriety
which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influence upon
the courts

FELICITAS BERBANO V. ATTY. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Berbano against Atty.
Barcelona for Malpractice and Gross Misconduct Unbecoming of a
Lawyer, Dereliction of Duty and Unjust Enrichment.
Berbano was one of the heirs of a certain Hilapo, who owned
a lot in Alabang. Said lot was being claimed by FIlinvest
Development Corp so Berbano and her co-heirs appointed a certain
Mr. Daen as attorney-in-fact. However, Mr. Dane was arrested in
Jan 1999 and was detained so he needed the assistance of a law
for his release. Someone recommended Atty. Barcelona to them.
So later that month, Atty. Barcelona went to see Mr. Daen in jail.
The latter engaged the services of Atty. Barcelona for his release.
Atty. Barcelona told them that they (Berbano and Co.) had to
produce P50,000 at that time so that he could secure Daen’s
release the following day. Berbano didn’t have enough money and
time to immediately come up with such big amount but they were
able to come up with P15,700. She handed Atty. Barcelona the
money. He said that he would go to the SC to talk to someone
regarding the release of Daen, and that they should just meet
tomorrow.
The day after, they met again. Berbano handed over another
check worth P24,000. The day after, they gave another P10,000 to
Atty. Barcelona (through his wife and daughter). There were other
payments of money, the total amounting to P64,000. After much
time wasted, and promises reiterated of the release of Daen, Atty.
Barcelona wasn’t seen again and he didn’t return their calls. Daen
was still in jail.
Atty. Barcelona failed to file an answer. Commissioner on Bar
Discipline found Barcelona guilty of malpractice and serious breach
of CPR. He recommended disbarment and return of the P64,000.
IBP Board of Governots adopted such findings but recommended
only suspension.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.

HELD/RATIO:
Yes. The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to
punish the individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from
the misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove from the
profession of law persons whose disregard for their oath of office
have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed
in them as members of the bar.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers,
the case against the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative
penalty.
Complainant’s evidence consists solely of her Affidavit-Complaint
and testimony before the Commission attesting to the truth of the
allegations laid down in her affidavit. The act of respondent in not
filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating
Commission, despite due notice, emphasized his contempt for legal
proceedings.
Respondent collected money from the complainant and the nephew
of the detained person in the total amount of P64,000.00 for the
immediate release of the detainee through his alleged connection
with a Justice of the Supreme Court. He deserves to be disbarred
from the practice of law. Respondent has demonstrated a penchant
for misrepresenting to clients that he has the proper connections
to secure the relief they seek, and thereafter, ask for money, which
will allegedly be given to such connections. In this case,
respondent misrepresented to complainant that he could get the
release of Mr. Porfirio Daen through his connection with a Supreme
Court Justice. In so doing, respondent placed the Court in dishonor
and public contempt. He is disbarred.