SANTOS V PAGUIO In a civil case Cutingting v Tan, the Honorable neither the one nor the other.
e Cutingting v Tan, the Honorable neither the one nor the other. The Court of First Instance of the
A.M. No. MTJ-93-781 November 16, 1993
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
FACTS:
The complainant is the lawyer for the defendants in
Civil Case an action for unlawful detainer with the MTC of
Meycauayan, Bulacan where the respondent is the presiding
Judge. The complainant alleged that after the answer in the said
case was filed and without notice and hearing, the respondent
judge rendered a decision in accordance with plaintiff's prayer.
RTC rendered the decision void but despite that, the respondent
judge amended the decision still in favor of the plaintiff in the
said case. Hence, the complainant then prays that the
respondent "be removed from office if only to save the integrity
of the judiciary. Complainant charges the respondent with gross
ignorance of the law and gross incompetence. Upon
recommendation, the Office of the Court Administrator affirmed
that the dispositive portion rendered was not acceptable as
decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent judge be administratively
liable?
HELD:
Yes. Respondent Judge is guilty of neglect of duty and
the violation of Canons 5 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
However, it is not therefore correct to say, as the complainant
suggested, that the order of the RTC stating that the
respondent's amended Decision is "void upon its face" forever
bars the respondent from rendering a new or amended decision
in the ejectment case. On the other hand, the complainant, is
however not free from his acts. The failure to divulge the
foregoing facts may have been intended by the complainant to
give his complaint a strong prima facie case against the
respondent. While he was entitled to adopt certain strategies in
his pleadings, he forgot that he owes to this Court absolute
candor, fairness and good faith. Complainant should, therefore,
be admonished to faithfully adhere to the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complainant is hereby ADMONISHED to be more
careful in the drafting of pleadings, always keeping in mind his
duty under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
LIBIT V OLIVA
A.C. No. 2837 October 7, 1994
FACTS:
Presiding Judge Domingo Panis ordered the Director of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an
investigation in view of determining the author of the Sheriff's
Return which appears to have been falsified and to institute such
criminal action. Afterwards, NBI, charged respondents, counsel
of Cutingting of falsifying Sheriff's Return of Summons during
the hearing of the aforesaid Civil Case thereby impending and/or
obstructing the speedy administration and/or dispensation of
Justice. Upon referral to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report,
and recommendation, the Court finds that respondent Atty.
Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant
the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Oliva is administratively liable and must
be subject to disciplinary action
HELD:
Yes. Practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess,
and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law. One
of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor.
Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty
from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. It is
essential that lawyers bear in mind at all times that their first duty
is not to their clients but rather to the courts, that they are above
all court officers sworn to assist the courts in rendering justice to
all and sundry, and only secondarily are they advocates of the
exclusive interests of their clients. In this case, respondent Atty.
Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a
lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise
violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides: 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.
MONTEREY V ARAYATA
61 Phil 820 Per Rec. Nos. 3527, 3408 August 23, 1935
IMPERIAL, J.:
FACTS:
Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata and notary public
Tereso Ma. Montoya was charge with falsification in having
ratified the deed of sale and having stated that Arcadio Arayata
personally appeared before him and confirmed the sale, knowing
fully well that said person is already dead and therefore could do
Province of Cavite, recommended that a disciplinary action be
taken against Arayata and that Montoya be exonerated, it having
been clearly established that the latter, in ratifying the
document, acted in good faith and relied on Arayata's assurance
that the old man then with him was really the vendor Arcadio
Arayata who ratified all the contents of the instrument.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Arayata is administratively liable?
HELD:
Yes. The acts committed by the respondent Arayata
relative to the deed of sale and his statements to notary
Montoya with regard to said document, constitute malpractice
and unprofessional conduct under the provisions of section 21 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, meriting for him a disciplinary action
mitigated in this case by the circumstance that he was apparently
the heir entitled to the ownership of the land and that the
complainant has neither real nor direct interest in the transaction
complained of by her. Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata guilty of
malpractice and suspend him from the practice of his profession
for 1 month.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-NATU V. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,
GR. NO. L-25291 JAN 30 1971
FACTS:
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees
Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees
Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees
Association-NATU (referred to as the Unions), while still
members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into
separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group. Two of the
lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia.
Garcia, as such acting president, in a circular issued in his name
and signed by him, tried to dissuade the members of the Unions
from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no avail. The Unions
went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life
Building at Plaza Moraga. CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for
unfair labor practice against the Companies under Republic Act
875. The complaint specifically charged the Companies with (1)
interfering with the members of the Unions in the exercise of
their right to concerted action, by sending out individual letters
to them urging them to abandon their strike and return to work,
with a promise of comfortable cots, free coffee and movies, and
paid overtime, and, subsequently, by warning them that if they
did not return to work on or before June 2, 1958, they might be
replaced; and (2) discriminating against the members of the
Unions as regards readmission to work after the strike on the
basis of their union membership and degree of participation in
the strike. The Companies denied the allegations.
Court of Industrial Relations dismissed the Unions' complaint for
lack of merit. Unions filed their motion for reconsideration and
their supporting memorandum but was denied by the Court of
Industrial Relations en banc.
ISSUE:
WON there was a violated made in the Canon 10.2 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Yes. It is the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Indeed, there is a
salient and salutary reason why they should do this. Only from
this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as
lawyers and litigants, take their bearings. This is because the
decisions referred to in article 8 of the Civil Code which reads,
"Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines," are only those enunciated by this Court of last
resort. Thus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and
exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this Court may lose
their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other
courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled.
COBB-PEREZ V LANTIN
GR NO L-22320 JULY 29, 1968
FACTS:
A civil case was filed by the respondent Ricardo
Hermoso against the petitioner Damaso Perez and Gregorio
Subong for the recovery of unpaid purchases of leather materials
used in his shoemaking business. The defendants and their
counsel did nothing despite due notice to them. A judgment was
rendered ordering them to pay the said sum. On August 23, 1961,
the respondent sheriff of Manila levied upon 3,573 shares of
common stock registered in the name of Damaso Perez with the
Republic Bank. This led to the series of petitions and motions and
other actions filed by the petitioner and caused the resetting of
the public sale for 6 times. The petitioners were not able to
present evidence to support their argument on Art 160 of the
Civil Code.
ISSUE/S:
WON the counsel be held liable for abetting the filing
of his clients
HELD:
Yes. The counsel is therefore ordered to pay for the
treble costs assessed against the petitioners. We feel compelled
to observe that during the protracted litigation below, the
petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at some
stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole
purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment
which has long become final and executory. Some of the actions
were filed, only to be abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners
and their counsel, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for
those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the
very ends of justice.
PRADO V ACOSTA
AC NO.11824 FEBRUARY 6,2018
ASA V CASTILLO
500 SCRA 309
FACTS:
In 1996, Atty. Pablito M. Castillo, an associate of the
Laurel Law Offices of which Attorneys Leon L. Asa and Jose
A. Oliveros are partners, endorsed to the law firm a guardianship
case pending before the RTC. Castillo appeared as counsel of
record for the therein petitioner, Dr. Salvador H. Laurel,
guardian ad litem of the minors Nonan who appear to have
inherited a sizeable amount of US dollars. A misunderstanding
later occurred between Asa and Castillo as regards their sharing
in the attorney’s fees in the guardianship case. In the pleading
signed by Castillo, it was alleged that Asa wants to be paid an
additional $75,000.00 for his services in providing coffee and
opening doors whenever there is a conference at the Laurel Law
Offices. Asa and Oliveros filed before IBP an administrative
complaint against Castillo and Ginger Anne, for gross violation of
the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Upon recommendation, the IBP CBD
recommended the dismissal of the case. The Board of Governors
of IBP adopted the recommendation. Hence, the present motion
for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Castillo and Ginger Anne is
administratively liable
HELD:
Yes. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the courts. Rule 10.01 of said Canon specifically
commands that a member of the bar 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 of the
same Canon provides that a member of the bar shall not
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved. And Section
20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court directs that a lawyer must
employ such means only as are consistent with truth and honor,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by any
artifice or false statement of fact or law. Complete candor or
honesty is thus expected from lawyers, particularly when they
appear and plead before the courts. They have an obligation to
the court as well as to the opposing party to make only truthful
statements in their pleadings. The burden cast on the judiciary
would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is
asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to
the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be
imagined.
BANOGON V ZERNA
G. R. No. L-35469 0ctober 9. 1987
154 SCRA 593
FACTS:
On February 9, 1926 the Court of First Instance of
Negros Oriental, rendered a decision of a land dispute in favored
of Melchor Zerna (respondent). The decision became final and
executory after thirty days. Alter thirty-one years, on March 6,
1957. Banogon filed a motion to amend the decision and followed
by a petition for review on Judgment on that same year. After
fourteen years. on October 11, 1971 respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the petition. On December 8, 1971 the petition for review
on judgment of the petitioner was dismissed and the motion for
reconsideration filed was denied by the court considering the
fact that it was beyond the allowable period. Petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
WON the petition for review and amendment of
judgment will be recognized accepted by the court after thirty-
one years of inaction
HELD:
No. Lawyers have duties and responsibilities to assist in the
proper administration of Justice. But in this case, the lawyer
violates the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him by filing
motion and petition way beyond the scope of allowable period.
As officer of the court he or she ought to know by heart their
mandated duties and responsibilities. It manifested in this case
that the profession was put to shame and creates public distrust.
The lawyer must be responsible enough to his or her client in
helping especially in claiming his or her client's right. As officer
of the court they should exercise properly and correctly the
mandates entrusted to them in assisting in the administration of
justice, by doing this, in order to uplift the image o the legal
profession in the society due to the fact that nowadays legal
profession merely perceived as money making profession, in a
sense that it misinterpreted the law to the point of distortion in
order to achieve their purposes.
CANLAS V CA
164 SCRA 160
FACTS:
The private respondent owns several parcels of land
located in Quezon City for which he is the registered owner. He
secured loans from L and R corporations and executed deeds of
over the parcels of land for the security of the same. Upon the
maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial
foreclosure of the properties in question after private
respondent failed to pay until maturity. The private respondent
filed a complaint for injunction over the said foreclosure and for
redemption of the parcels of land. Two years after the filing of
the petition, private respondent and Land R corporation entered
into a compromise agreement that renders the former to be
insured another year for the said properties, included m the
stipulations were the attorney's lees amounting 1000. The
private respondent however, remained to be turmoil when it
came to finances and was apparently unable to pay and secure
the attorney's fees, more so the redemption liability. Relief was
discussed by petitioner and private respondent executed a
document to redeem the parcels of land and to register the same
to her name. Allegations were made by the private respondent
claiming the parcels of land to his name but without prior notice.
The properties were already registered under the petitioner's
name. The private respondent calls for a review and for the court
to act on the said adverse claim by petitioner on said Certificates
for the properties consolidated by the redemption price he paid
for said properties. The private respondent filed a suit for the
annulment of judgment in the Court of appeals ruled over the
same.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is on solid ground on the No. The allegations are derogatory to the integrity
reacquisition over the said properties. and honor of respondent judge and constitute an unwarranted
criticism of the administration of justice in this country. They
HELD: suggest that lawyers, if they are well connected, can manipulate
the assignment of judges to their advantage. The truth is that the
No. By Atty-Cantas'own account, “due to tack of
assignments of Judges Arcangel and Capulong were made by
paying capacity of respondent Herrera, no financing entity was
this Court, by virtue of Administrative Order, precisely in the
willing to extend him any loan with which to pay the redemption
interest of an efficient administration of justice and pursuant to
price of his mortgaged properties and petitioner's P100. 000. 00
Sec. 5 (3), Art. VIII of the Constitution. the Court believes that
attorney's fees awarded in the Compromise Judgments,” a
consistent with the rule that the power to cite for contempt
development that should have tempered his demand for his fees.
must be exercised for preservative rather than vindictive
For obvious reasons, he placed his interest over and above those
principle we think that the jail sentence on petitioners may be
of his client, opposition to his oath to conduct himself as a lawyer
dispensed with while vindicating the dignity of the court. In the
with all good fidelity to his clients. The court finds the occasion
case of petitioner Kelly Wicker there is greater reason for doing
fit to stress that lawyering is not a money-making venture and
so considering that the particularly offending allegations in the
lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as
motion for inhibition do not appear to have come from him but
a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The
were additions made by Atty. Rayos. In addition, Wicker is
petitioner's efforts partaking of a shakedown-of his own client
advanced in years (80) and in failing health (suffering from
are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of
angina), a fact Judge Arcangel does not dispute. Wicker may
his fealty to his oath to-delay no man for money, we are not,
have indeed been the recipient of such a remark although he
however, condoning the private respondent's own
could not point a court employee who was the source of the
shortcomings in condemning Atty. Canlas monetarily, we cannot
same. At least he had the grace to admit his mistake both as to
overlook the fact that the private respondent has not settled his
the source and truth of said information.
liability.
WICKER V ARCANGEL
252 SCRA 445 G.R. No. 112869. January 29, 1996
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Kelly Wicker, with his wife Wynee Dieppe and the
Tectonics Asia Architects and Engineering Co., brought suit in the
Regional Trial Court against the LFS Enterprises, Inc. and others,
for the annulment of certain deeds by which a house and lot at
Forbes Park, which the plaintiffs claimed they had purchased,
was allegedly fraudulently titled in the name of the defendant
LFS Enterprises and later sold by the latter to codefendant Jose
Poe. The case was formerly presided over by Judge Ignacio
Capulong who later was replaced by respondent Judge Paul T.
Arcangel. It appears that on November 18, 1993, Wickers
counsel, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the
inhibition of respondent judge from the consideration of the
case. Allegations were considered to be malicious, derogatory
and contemptuous. Subsequently, they were held them guilty of
direct contempt.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent judge erred in holding the
petitioners guilty of direct contempt
HELD: