Chapter III Rule 12.
02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising
THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead,
or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as
a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court
hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
Judge to the proper authorities only.
CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he
has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts
of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
profference. He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions
of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede
the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his
witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the
witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness
to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a
witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his
client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument, and
the like; or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony,
entrust the trial of the case to another counsel..
CANON 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his
cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the
court.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for,
cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference
by another branch or agency of the government in the
normal course of judicial proceedings.
1 - Perea v. Almadro (2003)
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar
O. Perea against Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of
his duties as lawyer of herein complainant. Respondent
was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City (Branch 99) where he (complainant Perea) is being
charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. RTC issued
an order granting Atty. Almadro’s motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from said date.
All the while, complainant thought that respondent filed
said demurrer and the case against him dismissed. It was
only sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that Atty.
Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial court
ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his
defense. Later, a warrant was issued for his arrest
prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail.
Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to
respondent’s neglect of his duties. Respondent has not
attended any of his hearings which led complainant to
plead with respondent to withdraw formally as his counsel
so he could hire another lawyer. Because of Atty.
Almadro’s neglect, complainant is now facing the loss of
his freedom and livelihood.
Respondent filed three motions for extension of
time to file comment. The Court resolved to grant the said
motions with a warning that no further extensions shall be
granted. Respondent, through the law firm Sua and
Alambra, filed a Manifestation and Motion that respondent
has not yet received a copy of the complaint hence it asked
the Court to order the complainant to furnish them a copy.
Respondent through said law firm submitted an
Answer to the complaint, contending that: two days after
the RTC granted the manifestation of defense to file motion
for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he had finished the
draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which
he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for
editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before
the deadline, herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft
from the diskette but said drafts were nowhere to be found
despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him to believe that
the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions
accordingly filed since it is his practice to expunge from
the diskette drafts that were already finalized and acted
upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge of the RTC retired,
as a consequence, actions on pending cases were held in
abeyance; moreover, communications with the herein
complainant had become rarer; thereafter, towards the
end of 1997 up to the next five months of 1998,
respondent was preoccupied with the congressional
elections in Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost;
then he was offered a position at the Philippine Stock
Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance
Division which he accepted; his time and attention was
spent in the performance of his demanding job at the PSE
as well as in the preparation of his testimony before the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with the
"BW" scam; anent the case of herein complainant, he
offered on several occasions to withdraw as one of the
defense counsel of the complainant even to the extent of
offering to return his acceptance fee which the latter
however refused;6 it is not true that complainant pleaded
with respondent to withdraw as his counsel, the truth
being that it was complainant who refused to let go of
respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a counsel of
complainant in the criminal case before the RTC, he was
merely a collaborating counsel, the lead counsel being Atty.
Solomon Villanueva; finally, he was actually mulling over
the possible procedural steps to take with regard to
complainant’s case when he received instead, a copy of the
present complaint. It is plain from the records that
respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence
for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial
court and which his client, herein complainant was relying
on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to
apprise the latter about the developments of the case
leaving complainant completely surprised and without any
protection when years later, he received summons from
the trial court asking him to present evidence in his
defense and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant
for his arrest. Respondent’s negligence is compounded by
his attempt to have this tribunal believe the story of how
his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously
disappeared and how the absence of such file in his
diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed
in court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a
conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually
mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake
regarding complainant’s case when instead he received a
copy of this complaint for disbarment. Such story, as
observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is
contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.
Respondent would have this Court believe a very
preposterous story of how his draft disappeared, all the
time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the
necessary pleading before the trial court. Such behavior
cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty
therefor. The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua
and Atty. Alan Alambra to show cause why they should not
be held in contempt of court for deliberate falsehood and
misrepresentation in the preparation of the Answer for
herein respondent is appropriate. Records reveal that both
Attys. Sua and Alambra have filed their Joint Explanation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of violation of
Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text
of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a
provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
proved. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of paper, language or argument
of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved. If not faithfully or exactly
quoted, the decisions and rulings of the court may lose
their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of
other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be
misled.
2 - Allied Banking Corp. v. CA (2003)
FACTS:
Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired
by petitioner Allied Banking Corporation on 11 January
1978 and rose from accountant- book(k)eeper to assistant
manager in 1991. His appointment was covered by a
Notice of Personnel Action which provides as one of the
conditions of employment the provision on petitioner’s
right to transfer employees:
REGULAR APPOINTMENT: xxx It is understood
that the bank reserves the right to transfer or assign you to
other departments or branches of the bank as the need
arises and in the interest of maintaining smooth and
uninterrupted service to the public.
Private respondent was promoted several times
and was transferred to several branches.
Effecting a rotation/movement of officers
assigned in the Cebu homebase, petitioner listed
respondent as second in the order of priority of assistant
managers to be assigned outside of Cebu City having been
stationed in Cebu for seven years already. Private
respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred to
Bacolod City in a letter dated 19 April 1994 citing as
reason parental obligations, expenses, and the anguish that
would result if he is away from his family. He then filed a
complaint before the Labor Arbiter for constructive
dismissal.
Subsequently, petitioner bank informed private
respondent that he was to report to the Tagbilaran City
Branch effective 23 May 1994. Private respondent refused.
In a letter dated 13 June 1994, petitioner warned and
required of private respondent ubsequently, petitioner
informed private respondent that he was to report to the
Tagbilaran City Branch, however, private respondent again
refused. As a result, petitioner warned and required him to
follow the said orders; otherwise, he shall be penalized
under the company’s discipline policy.
Furthermore, private respondent was required to
explain and defend himself. The latter replied stating that
whether he be suspended or dismissed, it would all the
more establish and fortify his complaint pending before
the NLRC and further charges petitioner with
discrimination and favoritism in ordering his transfer. He
further alleges that the management’s discriminatory act
of transferring only the long staying accountants of Cebu in
the guise of its exercise of management prerogative when
in truth and in fact, the ulterior motive is to accommodate
some new officers who happen to enjoy favorable
connection with management. As a result, petitioner,
through a Memo, informed private respondent that Allied
Bank is terminating him. The reasons given for the
dismissal were: (1) continued refusal to be transferred
from the Jakosalem, Cebu City branch; and (2) his refusal
to report for work despite the denial of his application for
additional vacation leave.
After several hearings, the Labor Arbiter held that
Allied Bank had abused its management prerogative in
ordering the transfer of Galanida to its Bacolod and
Tagbilaran branches. In ruling that Galanida’s refusal to
transfer did not amount to insubordination, the Labor
Arbiter misquoted this Courts decision in Dosch v. NLRC,
thus:
“As a general rule, the right to transfer or reassign
an employee is recognized as an employers exclusive right
and the prerogative of management (Abbott Laboratories
vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 713 [1987]). The exercise of this right,
is not however, absolute. It has certain limitations. Thus, in
Helmut Dosch vs. NLRC, et al. 123 SCRA 296 (1983), the
Supreme Court, ruled:
While it may be true that the right to transfer or
reassign an employee is an employers exclusive right and
the prerogative of management, such right is not absolute.
The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his
employee is limited by the paramount police power xxx for
the relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual but impressed with public interest. xxx And
neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against
each other.
Refusal to obey a transfer order cannot be
considered insubordination where employee cited reason
for said refusal, such (sic) as that of being away from the
family. (Underscoring supplied by the Labor Arbiter)”
 The Labor Arbiter reasoned that Galanida’s
transfer was inconvenient and prejudicial because
Galanida would have to incur additional expenses for
board, lodging and travel. On the other hand, the Labor
Arbiter held that Allied Bank failed to show any business
urgency that would justify the transfer.
On appeal, the NLRC likewise ruled that Allied
Bank terminated Galanida without just cause. Citing Dosch
v. NLRC, the Court of Appeals held that Galanida’s refusal
to comply with the transfer orders did not warrant his
dismissal. The appellate court ruled that the transfer from
a regional office to the smaller Bacolod or Tagbilaran
branches was effectively a demotion. The appellate court
agreed that Allied Bank did not
afford Galanida procedural due process because
there was no hearing and no notice of termination. The
Memo merely stated that the bank would issue a notice of
termination but there was no such notice.
ISSUE:
WON the LA and Atty. Durano violated Canon 10, Rule
10.02
HELD:
YES. Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante and
Atty. Loreto M. Durano are ADMONISHED to be more
careful in citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
future.
The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and,
worse, the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, both
misquoted the Supreme Courts ruling in Dosch v. NLRC.
The Court held in Dosch:
“We cannot agree to Northwests submission that
petitioner was guilty of disobedience and insubordination
which respondent Commission sustained. The only piece
of evidence on which Northwest bases the charge of
contumacious refusal is petitioners letter dated August 28,
1975 to R.C. Jenkins wherein petitioner acknowledged
receipt of the formers memorandum dated August 18,
1975, appreciated his promotion to Director of
International Sales but at the same time regretted that at
this time for personal reasons and reasons of my family, I
am unable to accept the transfer from the Philippines and
thereafter expressed his preference to remain in his
position, saying: I would, therefore, prefer to remain in my
position of Manager- Philippines until such time that my
services in that capacity are no longer required by
Northwest Airlines. From this evidence, We cannot discern
even the slightest hint of defiance, much less imply
insubordination on the part of petitioner.”
The phrase [r]efusal to obey a transfer order
cannot be considered insubordination where employee
cited reason for said refusal, such as that of being away
from the family does not appear anywhere in the Dosch
decision. Galanida’s counsel lifted the erroneous phrase
from one of the italicized lines in the syllabus of Dosch
found in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA).
The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial
reports of Supreme Court decisions or resolutions is not
the work of the Court, nor does it state this Courts
decision. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter
who gives his understanding of the decision. The reporter
writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in
reading the reports. A syllabus is not a part of the courts
decision. A counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of
the carefully considered text in the decision of the Court.
In the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante and
Atty. Durano began by quoting from Dosch, but substituted
a portion of the decision with a headnote from the SCRA
syllabus, which they even underscored. In short, they
deliberately made the quote from the SCRA syllabus
appear as the words of the Supreme Court. We admonish
them for what is at the least patent carelessness, if not an
outright attempt to mislead the parties and the courts
taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a
lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
text of a decision or authority. It is the duty of all officers of
the court to cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme
Court accurately.
3 - Seludo v. Fineza (2003)
FACTS:
The incident which gave rise to this administrative
case occurred in the course of the proceedings of People of
the Philippines vs. Alfonso De Villar, Errol De Villar and
Rodeo Lerio, Criminal Case for attempted murder, before
respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza, RTC of Caloocan.
The respondent judge was charged
administratively by Atty. Antonio D. Seludo, counsel for the
accused, before the Office of the Court Administrator of the
SC, with the following offenses: (1) gross ignorance of the
law, (2) oppression in office, (3) grave abuse of authority,
and (4) conduct unbecoming of a judge.
It was alleged that on November 27, 2002,
respondent judge ordered the arrest of complainant for
the failure of accused, Errol De Villar and Rodeo Lerio, as
well as their counsel, Atty. Antonio Seludo, to appear in
today’s promulgation of the decision despite due notice.
The Order of Arrest commanded any officer of the law to
arrest complainant and to keep him in jail until the
decision in said Criminal Case shall have been
promulgated.
Complainant averred that he was the defense
counsel in two separate Criminal Cases: (1) before Judge
Edwin B. Ramizo and (2) before respondent judge. On
November 11, 2002, complainant received an order from
respondent setting the promulgation of the decision in
Criminal Case (before respondent judge) on November 18.
The promulgation did not push through as respondent
judge was confined in a hospital. On November 25,
complainant received another order setting the
promulgation at 8:30 a.m. of November 27. However, upon
checking his calendar, complainant noticed that on the said
date and time, he had a previously-set hearing of Criminal
Case before Judge Ramizo. Due to the conflicting schedule,
he instructed his secretary to inform the office of
respondent judge that he could not attend the
promulgation of his decision. He was thus surprised to
receive on November 28, the aforementioned order
directing his arrest and detention.
Upon his arrest, complainant requested
permission to go to the court of respondent judge to ask
for reconsideration. In court, respondent judge refused to
see him. Complainant waited and was able to talk to
respondent judge when the latter went out of his
chambers and walked to his car. Complainant pleaded with
respondent judge, who opened the windows of his car and,
in the presence of the police officers, said, kung gusto mo,
pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at sasagasaan na lang
kita.
Complainant spent the night in jail. The next day,
he was brought to court for the promulgation of the
decision. However, Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., the
public prosecutor, came late and was improperly dressed.
Respondent judge flared up, fined him and held the
promulgation in abeyance until Prosecutor Mananquil paid
the cashier the one thousand peso (P1,000.00)-fine meted
on him. Atty. Eduardo Rodriguez, the lawyer assisting
complainant, requested for a written order to be presented
to the cashier as basis for the payment of the imposed fine,
but respondent merely told him, If you want an order, I
will sign that order on Monday. Fortunately, Prosecutor
Mananquil was able to pay the fine. The decision was
promulgated on the same afternoon and complainant was
released from jail.
Respondent judge: denied the allegations of the
complaint. He averred that he ordered the incarceration of
complainant to avoid delay in the promulgation of the
decision in criminal case. Allegedly, complainant failed to
attend the first scheduled date of promulgation. He
likewise denied the car incident and alleged that he merely
asked complainant, umalis ka diyan at baka masagasaan
iyong paa, since complainant was leaning on the left side of
his car.
Complainant: Replied stating that his secretary
called respondents office on November 18, and was told
that all hearings scheduled for the day were cancelled due
to respondents hospitalization. He denied he was delaying
the case.
OCA: The arrest of the complainant was, therefore,
not only illegal, but also oppressive, and it violated his
constitutional right to due process. Complainant was
arrested and detained without giving him the opportunity
to be heard. In so doing, respondent judge, wittingly or
unwittingly, committed arbitrary detention defined and
penalized under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code
when the order of arrest was issued for complainant (who)
was not committing a crime
In his COMMENT, respondent judge used the
words: fact fabricator, congenital liar, Indian who fails to
comply with his commitment and dim-witted lawyer, as
descriptive of the complainant. These words are
inflammatory which should have been avoided. In
explaining why he issued the order of arrest against the
complainant, the use of intemperate and insulting
rhetorics is not necessary, if only to maintain the dignity
of, and respect for, the court as an institution
The OCA recommended that respondent judge be
penalized to pay a FINE in the amount of twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) for gross ignorance of the law,
oppression, grave abuse of authority and violation of Rule
8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent judge should be fined?
HELD:
YES. The court held respondent judge guilty of gross
ignorance of procedure and impose on him a fine of
P40,000.00, and gross misconduct and impose on him a
fine of P40,000.00, considering his repetition of the
offense.
Respondent based his authority in ordering
complainants incarceration on Section 14, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Court (Bail to secure appearance of
material witness). The rule relied upon by the respondent
cannot be used as basis for the detention of complainant
since he is a counsel and not a material witness to a case.
Section 6, Rule 120 (Promulgation of judgment) of the
Rules of Court is likewise of no help to the respondent. It
does not require the presence of the counsel during the
promulgation of a judgment.
We hold that respondent violated Rule 3.04,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states:
Rule 3.04. A judge should be patient, attentive, and
courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to
litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court.
A judge should avoid consciously falling into the attitude of
mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of
the courts for the litigants.
It is plain that respondent was impatient and
discourteous in dealing with complainant. Judges should
respect all people appearing before their courts, be they
lawyers or litigants. Respondent ordered complainants
arrest without according him the elementary right to
challenge the order. The violation of his right to due
process cannot be denied. To be sure, complainant
satisfactorily explained his absence in the November 18
scheduled promulgation. Before the promulgation,
complainants secretary called respondents office to verify
the schedule and was informed that all hearings for the
day were cancelled due to respondents confinement in the
hospital. It is therefore inaccurate to contend that
complainant was absent twice, and he has to be arrested to
prevent delay in the promulgation of the decision. The
Office of the Court Administrator correctly observed that
the respondent should have followed the following
procedure:
What respondent judge should have done under
the circumstances obtaining at the time he issued the
order of arrest of complainant was first to issue an order
directing him (Seludo), within a reasonable time, to show
cause why he should not be punished for indirect
contempt of court and, reset the promulgation of the
decision to some other time at the convenience of the
court. If the explanation is not satisfactory to the court,
then and only then, that a penalty should be imposed upon
the contemner.
It is likewise provided in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC that
administrative cases against judges of lower courts, who
are likewise lawyers, are based on grounds which are also
grounds for disciplinary action of members of the Bar,
among others, for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
We consider respondent judge to have violated:
(1) Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits the use of inappropriate
language: Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper; and
(2) Rule 10.03, Canon 10, which mandates the proper
observance of the rules of procedure:
Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
We are disappointed by respondents penchant for
improper words when he called the complainant a fact
fabricator, a congenital liar, an Indian who fails to comply
with his commitment and dim-witted. We had previously
admonished respondent judge for using inappropriate
language. In Judge Antonio J. Fineza vs. Romeo P. Aruelo,
where respondent judge was enjoined to be more
circumspect in his language. We admonished him to
exercise prudence and restraint in his language and
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely. In a more recent
case decided by the Court En Banc, Lim vs. Judge Antonio J.
Fineza, respondent judge was also found guilty of gross
misconduct for failing to execute a judgment which had
become final, and was fined P30,000.00, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with
more severely.
We consider respondents act of ordering the
detention of complainant without just cause as gross
ignorance of the law or procedure, and the improper use of
words in his Comment as gross misconduct,[15] both
under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court,
[16] as amended, viz:
Sec. 8. Serious charges Serious charges include:
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct;…
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
Section 11 of the same Rule, provides the following
penalty, viz:
SEC. 11. Sanctions A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in
no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits
for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months;
or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
P40,000.00.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent judge
guilty of gross ignorance of procedure and impose on him
a fine of P40,000.00, and gross misconduct and impose on
him a fine of P40,000.00, considering his repetition of the
offense. SO ORDERED.
4 - Baculi v. Battung (2011)
FACTS:
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Battung with the Commission on Discipline of
the IBP against the respondent, alleging that the latter
violated Canons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during
the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case
No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his
motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice
but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice.
When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt,
the respondent shouted, "Then cite me!" Judge Baculi cited
him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00.
The respondent then left.
While other cases were being heard, the
respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, "Judge,
I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of
you!" Judge Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the
respondent out of the courtroom and cited him for direct
contempt of court for the second time. After his hearings,
Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent at the hall
of the courthouse, apparently waiting for him. The
respondent again shouted in a threatening tone.
On the alleged violation of Canon 12 of the CPR,
according to Judge Baculi, the respondent filed dilatory
pleadings in Civil Case No. 2640, an ejectment case. Judge
Baculi rendered on October 4, 2007 a decision in Civil Case
No. 2640, which he modified on December 14, 2007. After
the modified decision became final and executory, the
branch clerk of court issued a certificate of finality. The
respondent filed a motion to quash the previously issued
writ of execution, raising as a ground the motion to dismiss
filed by the defendant for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Baculi
asserted that the respondent knew as a lawyer that
ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of First Level
Courts and the latter was merely delaying the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. The respondent filed his
Answer, 9 essentially saying that it was Judge Baculi who
disrespected him (wow ganda ka??) [hinuhumiliate daw
siya to make it appear in public that he is a negligent
lawyer, incompetent, mumbling, and irresponsible lawyer]
IBP findings: At the first part of the hearing as
reflected in the TSN, it was observed that the respondent
was calm. He politely argued his case but the voice of the
complainant appears to be in high pitch. During the
mandatory conference, it was also observed that indeed,
the complainant maintains a high pitch whenever he
speaks. Thereafter, it was observed that both were already
shouting at each other. But after hearing the tape, the
undersigned in convinced that it was Atty. Battung who
shouted first at the complainant.
IBP: (lah ikaw naman pala talaga bes.) respondent
failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and
maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. The
respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that
provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
courts.
With respect to the charge of violation of Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Commissioner
De la Rama found that the evidence submitted is
insufficient to support a ruling that the respondent had
misused the judicial processes to frustrate the ends of
justice. Respondent: Reprimanded.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Battung violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
CPR.
HELD:
YES. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by
shouting at him inside the courtroom during court
proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels,
and court personnel. The respondent even came back to
harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many
witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the respondent
continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted in a manner
that clearly showed disrespect for his position even after
the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact, after initially
leaving the court, the respondent returned to the
courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. These
actions were not only against the person, the position and
the stature of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well
whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted,
and brought to disrepute by the respondent.
Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter
because of their position and avowed duty to the courts,
cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and
disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom
completely disregards the latter's role, stature and
position in our justice system. When the respondent
publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that
he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against
the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner
tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi's
competence and in his ability to decide cases.
Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be
handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the
Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot
act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and
bring the justice system into disrepute.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty.
Melchor A. Battung is found GUILTY of violating Rule
11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year effective upon the finality of this Decision. He
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
5 - Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo (2007)
FACTS:
This administrative case stemmed from the events
of the criminal case No. 5144 entitled People v. Luis
Bucalon Plaza, heard before the sala of Presiding Judge
Jose Manuel P. Tan, RTC of Surigao City
This criminal case was originally raffled to the sala
of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao City. Judge
Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the
accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the
prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide
and not the charge of murder. Consequently, the counsel
for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail
Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior
State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case,
objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original
charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was
not subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court.1
In an Order, Judge Buyser inhibited himself from
further trying the case because of the "harsh insinuation"
of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo that he "lacks the
cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by allegedly
suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail
bond by counsel for the accused.
The case was transferred to RTC of Surigao City,
presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan. In an Order dated
November 12, 2002, Judge Tan favorably resolved the
Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, and fixed the
amount of the bond at P40,000.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals
(CA); instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article regarding
the Order granting bail to the accused in the August 18,
2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article,
entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for
allowing murder suspect to bail out,"
The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and
the writer of the article, Mark Francisco of the Mindanao
Gold Star Daily, to appear in court on September 20, 2003
to explain why they should not be cited for indirect
contempt of court for the publication of the article which
degraded the court and its presiding judge with its lies and
misrepresentation.
The said Order stated that contrary to the
statements in the article, Judge Buyser described the
evidence for the prosecution as not strong, but sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused only for homicide. Moreover,
it was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from
the case for an unclear reason. Judge Buyser, in an Order
dated August 30, 2002, declared in open court in the
presence of respondent that he was inhibiting himself
from the case due to the harsh insinuation of respondent
that he lacked the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Mark Francisco admitted that the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily caused the publication of the article. He
disclosed that respondent stated that the crime of murder
is non-bailable. When asked by the trial court why he
printed such lies, Mr. Francisco answered that his only
source was respondent. Mr. Francisco clarified that in the
statement alleging that Judge Buyser inhibited himself
from the case for an unclear reason, the phrase "for an
unclear reason," was added by the newspaper's Executive
Editor Herby S. Gomez.
Respondent admitted that he caused the holding
of the press conference, but refused to answer whether he
made the statements in the article until after he shall have
filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to answer, the
trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to
Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
After this, respondent still entertained media
interview in a radio station, and in said interview, again
attacked the integrity of Judge Tan, calling him a judge who
does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does not
accord due process to the people. He was ordered by the
trial cause to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt and not be suspended from the practice of law
for violating Canon 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. However, on scheduled hearing respondent
did not appear or informed the court of his absence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Prosec. Bagabuyo violated the canons?
HELD:
Yas!
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who
are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar
imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct
by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall
submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities
only.
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when
he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference
where he made statements against the Order dated
November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No.
5144 to be released on bail.
 Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he
indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial
arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor
lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail
out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents statements in the
article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was
still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13,
which states that a lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending
to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
In regard to the radio interview given to Tony
Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the
proper authorities only for redress of his grievances
against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for
his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated
that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong
aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying
the law, and that he was a liar.
Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he
has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to
the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.
As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the
court, respondent should have set the example of
observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts
and to judicial officers.
Montecillo v. Gica held: It is the duty of the lawyer
to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an
officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and
authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according
to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees
the stability of our democratic institutions which, without
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
6 - Gabriel v. CA (1976)
FACTS:
The petition in the cases at bar for review of the
CA decision which affirmed in toto the Manila CFI’s
judgment convicting, after joint trial, the two petitioners
accused of the crime of theft, was denied for lack of merit.
The court further noted that a first petition for the same
purpose filed through another lawyer had been previously
denied and final judgment entered, and cited Atty. Cornelio
Orteza who filed the second petition at bar for contempT
and/or disciplinary action.
Respondent Atty. Orteza still filed without leave of
court a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
resolution denying his
petition for review and after having secured for
the purpose an extension (on the ground of pressure of
work) filed on July 12, 1976 his explanation.
The Burden of both pleading is that the first
petition to set aside the CA affirmance of petitioner’s
conviction was a special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65, while the second petition was one for review
under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Orteza should be cited in contempt
HELD:
YES. The explanation is manifestly unsatisfactory.
However zealous may be counsel's concern and belief in
the alleged innocence of the petitioners, it is elementary
that counsel may not split their appeal into one to set aside
the appellate court's denial of petitioners appellants'
motion for reconsideration of its decision affirming the
trial court's judgment of conviction and/or for new trial
(the first petition) and into another to set aside the
appellate court's decision itself, which affirmed the trial
court's conviction of the petitioners-appellants (the second
petition).
Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the
Court's processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede obstruct and degrade the administration of justice
and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to
add, the lawyer who filed such multiple or repetitious
petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final
and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary
action for incompetence (for not knowing any better or for
willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all
good fidelity to the courts and to maintain only such
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with
truth and honor.
Respondent Atty. Orteza is therefore adjudged guilty of
contempt of court and is ordered to pay a fine of Five
Hundred (P500.00) pesos with ten (10) days from notice
hereof failing which, he shall be imprisoned for a period of
(50) days.
Petitioners' purported motion for reconsideration of the
Court's resolution of June 11, 1976 denying their second
petition is ordered expunged from the records as a sham
motion, (as is the second petition itself), since the decision
sought, to be reviewed has long become final and
executory with the entry on May 10, 1976 of final
judgment of denial of the first petition.
7 - Santiago v. Rafanan (2004)
FACTS:
 Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology filed for the disbarment of Atty.
Edison V. Rafanan. Than Complaint was filed with the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. The petition stated that respondent, in
notarizing several document on different dates failed
and/or refused to: a) make the proper notation regarding
the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants. B)
enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial
register and c) make and execute the certification and
enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had
notarized, all in violation of the notarial provisions of the
Revised Administrative Code.
Complainant likewise alleged that respondent
executed an affidavit in favor of his client and offered the
same as evidence in the case wherein he was actively
representing his client. The IBP Board of Governors
modified the disbarment proposal and instead imposed a
penalty of PHP 3000 with a warning that any repetition of
the violation will be dealt with a heavier penalty.
ISSUE:
WON the penalty imposed by the IBP is proper.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the
Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Notarial Law is explicit on the
obligations and duties of notaries public. They are
required to certify that the party to every document
acknowleged before them has presented the proper
Residence certificate or exemption from the residence tax.
And to enter its number, place of issue, and date as part of
such certification. They are also required to maintain and
keep a notarial registed; to enter therein all insruments
notarized by the; and to “give to each instrument executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before them a number
corresponding to the one in their register and to state
therein the page or pages of their register, on which the
same is recorded. Failure to perform these duties would
result in the revocation of their commission as notaries
public.
Canon 5 is also violated because the canon state
the obligation of lawyers to be well-informed of the
existing laws and to keep abreast with the legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence
which the respondent failed to satisfy.
Hence, the penalty imposed by the IBP is proper.
8 - Foodsphere v. Mauricio (2009)
FACTS:
Foodsphere, Inc, corporation engaged in the
business of meat processing and manufacture and
distribution of canned goods and grocery products under
the brand name CDO, filed a Verified Complaint for
disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as Batas
Mauricio (respondent), a writer/columnist of tabloids
including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and
HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO
ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program
Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB, for (1)
grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyers oath and
(3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating
prosecutors.
On June 22, 2004, Cordero purportedly bought
from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a
can of CDO Liver spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and
his relatives were
eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they
found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony
of worms inside the can. Corderos wife thus filed a
complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug
Administration (BFAD). Laboratory examination
confirmed the presence of parasites in the Liver spread.
Complainant instead offered to return actual
medical and incidental expenses incurred by the Corderos
as long as they were supported by receipts, but the offer
was turned down. And the Corderos threatened to bring
the matter to the attention of the media. Respondent sent
complainant via fax a copy of the front page of the would-
be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas
BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 12 which complainant found to contain
articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and
defects to it and its products. Respondent threatened to
publish the articles unless complainant gave in to the
P150,000 demand of the Corderos. Complainant thereupon
reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the
Corderos, but respondent turned it down.
The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN
seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the
BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint.
Respondent, who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN
as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a
tabloid that he prepared the document.
And respondent wrote in his columns in the
tabloids articles which put complainant in bad light. Thus,
in the August 31- September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang
Patas BATAS, he wrote an article captioned KADIRI ANG
CDO LIVER SPREAD! In another article, he wrote IBA PANG
PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN! which appeared in the same
publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in
the same publication, its September 14-20, 2004 issue, he
wrote another article entitled DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG
CDO.
Complainant thus filed criminal complaints
against respondent and several others for Libel and
Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of
the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The
complaints were pending at he time of the filing of the
present administrative complaint.
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No.
XVIII-2006-114 dated March 20, 2006, adopted the
findings and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner to suspend respondent from the practice of
law for two years.The Court finds the findings/evaluation
of the IBP well-taken. The Court, once again, takes this
occasion to emphasize the necessity for every lawyer to act
and comport himself in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, which
confidence may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Mauricio violated several
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the
practice of law.
By the above-recited acts, respondent violated
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP
found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his
interest to obtain funds for his BATAS Foundation and
seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and
his television program.
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates: A lawyer
shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule
8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandate, viz: CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper, by using intemperate language.
By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with
the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent
also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times
uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.
Wherefore, Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation
of the lawyers oath and breach of ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three years effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.
9 - Jimenez v. Verano/ Lozamo v. Verano (2014)
FACTS:
Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports attached
to the Complaint as the "Alabang Boys") were the accused
in cases filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for the illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs. 3 In
a Joint Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008, the
charges were dropped for lack of probable cause. 4
Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask
clarificatory questions during the evaluation of the case,
several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and
"cover-up" allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug
trade. This prompted the House Committee on Illegal
Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was
revealed during one such hearing that respondent had
prepared the release order for his three clients using the
letterhead of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the stationery of then Secretary Raul
Gonzales. Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as
founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption
(VACC), sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato
S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to
drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a
highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that
respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and
should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the
bar.
For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint
on respondent's alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer
shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land,
and promote respect for legal processes. Atty. Lozano
contended that respondent showed disrespect for the law
and legal processes in drafting the said order and sending
it to a high-ranking public official, even though the latter
was not a government prosecutor.
RESPONDENT'S VERSION
In his Comment, respondent alludes to the Joint
Inquest Resolution dropping the charges against his clients
for lack of probable cause, arguing that the resolution also
ordered the immediate release of Brodett and Tecson. He
reasoned that the high hopes of the accused, together with
their families, came crashing down when the PDEA still
refused to release his clients. Sheer faith in the innocence
of his clients and fidelity to their cause prompted him to
prepare and draft the release order. Respondent admits
that perhaps he was overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of
Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited." In
any case, respondent continues, the drafted release order
was not signed by the Secretary and therefore remained "a
mere scrap of paper with no effect at all."
FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING
COMMISSIONER
The Commissioner noted that both complaints
remained unsubstantiated, while the letter-complaint of
Jimenez and Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore, no
evidence was adduced to prove the charges. However, by
his own admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his
Comment, respondent drafted the release order
specifically for the signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act
of "feeding" the draft order to the latter was found to be
highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official.
Hence, Commissioner Abelita found respondent guilty of
violating Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a
warning not to repeat the same or any similar action.
ISSUE:
whether or not the attorney is administratively liable for
the violation of the code of professional responisibility
HELD:
After a careful review of the records, we agree
with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to hold
respondent administratively liable. Canon 13, the
provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner,
states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence,
or gives the appearance of influencing the court." We
believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling
not limited to the regular courts, but even in all other
venues in the justice sector, where respect for the rule of
law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.
During the mandatory hearing conducted by the
Committee on Bar Discipline, respondent stated that the
PDEA refused to release his clients unless it received a
direct order from the DOJ Secretary. This refusal
purportedly impelled him to take more serious action. He
personally visited Secretary Gonzales and according to him
he ( Gonzales) was entertaining us, and we were
discussing the case.
Respondent likewise stated that his "experience
with Secretary Gonzales is, he is very open;" and that
"because of my practice and well, candidly I belong also to
a political family, my father was a Congressman. So, he
(Gonzalez) knows of the family and he knows my sister
was a Congresswoman of Pasay and they were together in
Congress. In other words, I am not a complete stranger to
him." Upon questioning by Commissioner Rico A.
Limpingco, respondent admitted that he was personally
acquainted with the Secretary; however, they were not
that close.
These statements and others made during the
hearing establish respondent's admission that 1) he
personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact
that the case was still pending before the latter; and 2)
respondent caused the preparation of the draft release
order on official DOJ stationery despite being unauthorized
to do so, with the end in view of "expediting the case."
The way respondent conducted himself
manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and
consideration from a government agency. This is precisely
the type of improper behavior sought to be regulated by
the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-bound
to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be
seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the
people's faith in the judicial process is diluted. The primary
duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the
administration of justice. To that end, their clients' success
is wholly subordinate. Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system." Further,
according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body." The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07,
mandates a lawyer "to impress upon his client compliance
with the laws and the principles of fairness."
Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause
must always be within the bounds of the law. Given the
import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist
that would not serve as commensurate penalty for the
offense.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty.
Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rules
1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six (6) months effective
immediately. This also serves as an emphatic WARNING
that repetition of any similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be appended to the
respondent's bar records. The Court Administrator is
hereby directed to inform the different courts of this
suspension.
SO ORDERED.