Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Ethics Digests 2001 Bar Ops
Legal Ethics Digests 2001 Bar Ops
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Facts: <ud"e 1 was due for compulsory retirement. The .)A found that he had many pendin" cases# some of which were undecided beyond the ;5,day period. Held: F 0:I but penalty miti"ated. 1ule -.57 of )anon - en+oins all +ud"es to attend promptly to the business of the court and decide cases within the time fi*ed by law. A +ud"e is mandated to render +ud"ment not more than ninety =;5> days from the time the case is submitted for decision. Failure to render the decision within the prescribed period of ninety =;5> days from submission of a case for decision constitutes serious misconduct and "ross inefficiency. However# since after bein" reminded of this# <ud"e 1 cleared most of his doc2et =even those not overdue for decision> before retirin"# the fine is miti"ated. Atty. Ra$*a A. Sanc:e? ,. 5$)%e A$%$&tine A. Ve&ti* C2'0 SCRA 1D Facts: )omplainant char"ed 1T) <ud"e Vestil with falsifyin" his monthly certificate of service submitted to the () by statin" that he has no pendin" case submitted for decision or resolution that has "one beyond the 0 0:T' =;5> day period allowed by law when in fact there were numerous civil P criminal cases which the respondent failed to resolve within the said period. 1espondents say most of the cases were either inherited P substantially heard by other +ud"es# or that they require further study or whose steno"raphic notes were yet to be transcribed E and these are e*cepted from bein" included the certificate by a proviso contained therein. Held: 1espondent <ud"e suspended and fined. <ud"es are mandated to decide cases seasonably. <ud"es who cannot comply with such mandate should as2 for additional time# e*plainin" in their request the reasons for the delay. 0either the proviso nor the fact that notes are to be transcribed is a valid defense for not decidin" within the required time. The () has consistently held that the failure of a +ud"e to decide a case within the required period is not e*cusable and constitutes "ross inefficiency P the non,observance of said rule is "round for administrative sanction a"ainst the defaultin" +ud"e. B. LAWYERS 1. Assisting in the 1pee y A #inistration of -ustice Ete1na* Ga1)en& -e4 1ia* Pa1< C 19 1ati n ,&. C $1t + A99ea*& C2'" SCRA 622D Facts: <ud"ment was rendered a"ainst the petitioner orderin" it to reconvey the cemetery to the ri"htful owners. Iespite the final decision of the ()# petitioner was able to prevent the e*ecution for 3C years# and thus render the +ud"ment ineffectual. They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and the )A despite the fact that it would never prosper as the trial court9s decision had lon" become final before the said petitions were filed. Held: !etition denied. Hhile lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client and Beal in the defense of their client9s ri"ht# they are also officers of the court# bound to e*ert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of +ustice. They should not misuse the
21
Facts: ))) filed an in+unction suit to prevent the IB! and A!T from foreclosin" on its mort"a"es. Iurin" trial# IB! P A!T were unable to appear for cross,e*aminin" )))9s witnesses because the respective counsels were unprepared# unavailable or ill. The lower court decided this as a waiver# hence +ud"ment was rendered for ))). IB! P A!T filed this petition alle"in" denial of due process. Held: !etition denied. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedin"s but did not do so. )ounsel for A!T was absent on several occasions because of withdrawal of previous counsel# unreadiness to conduct the cross, e*aminations and serious illness. The withdrawal of A!T9s previous counsel in the thic2 of the proceedin"s would be a reasonable "round to see2 postponement of the hearin". However# such necessitates a duty on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the ne*t scheduled hearin". The e*cuse that it was due to the former counsel9s failure to turn over the records of the case to A!T# shows the ne"li"ence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case. )ounsel should have ta2en adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his client# rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. A motion to postpone trial on the "round that counsel is unprepared for trial demonstrates indifference and disre"ard of his client9s interest. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed and obli"ed to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedin"s that have transpired prior to his ta2eover. Also# even if counsel had been ill with den"ue# he chose not to notify his co, counsels who could have conducted the cross,e*amination. 2. .alsehoo /.oru#"shopping/Dilatory )actics Ban H$a 8. 7* 1e& ,. Atty. En1i2$e S. C:$a C"06 SCRA /6!D Facts: )hua was char"ed with many offenses. The evidence was found to support the char"es that he notariBed a for"ed deed of sale# that he caused to be published an advertisement of a (:) decision in order to brin" ridicule and shame upon a corporation# that he filed a civil case 2nowin" that the reliefs he prayed for were probably "ranted in the (:) case E thus belyin" his certification a"ainst forum shoppin". He has also been previously reprimanded for bribin" a +ud"e and for consistently usin" dilatory tactics to prolon" a liti"ation. Held: I (BA11:I. He has thus violated 1ules 35.53# 38.58# 38.5D =foistin" or commission of falsehood# forum,shoppin" and causin" in court proceedin"s># )anon 3; =failin" to resort to lawful means in representin" his client># 8C# -.53 and 3-.58 =causin" undue publication of a pendin" action>. He had an active role in committin" fraud since he falsely stated that the person ma2in" the deed of sale appeared before him and stated that the same was his free act and deed, when evidence shows the si"nature was for"edF also# he prolon"ed a family dispute by usin" dilatory tactics and placin" an advertisement in order to ridicule his opponents E in violation of 1ule 3.5D that lawyers should encoura"e their clients to end a controversy by a fair settlement. A lawyer must uphold the inte"rity of the profession. He brin"s honor to it by honesty and fair dealin" and by performin" his duties to society# the bar# the courts and his clients. 3. &oo Moral Character T 4a& Ca@$*i&an ,. 5$)%e A)1ian N. Pa%a*i*a$an C2'# SCRA !'"D
22
!. Abuse of Authority R &a*ia Vi**a1$e*( et a* ,. G1a9i* n( et a*: In t:e -atte1 + t:e Petiti n t Re4 ,e Atty. 5 &e A. G1a9i* n a& P1e&i)ent( IBP C"02 SCRA 1"0D Facts: $ was accused of 36 B! employees who sou"ht his removal as B! !resident for: mmorality# questionable disbursements of funds# dishonesty# failure to turn over B! donations from private individuals# refusal to turn over records and money pertainin" to the :mployees9 &oan (avin"s Association# Appropriation of .ffice !roperty# :*tendin" loans to B! employees# oppression?harassment# appointment of unworthy employees and relatives and or"aniBation of a secret society. The issue re"ardin" le"al ethics is whether the () can assume +urisdiction or should it be considered a labor dispute under the +urisdiction of the 0&1). Held: )har"es dropped. All the accusations of the petitioners were either unsubstantiated or refuted by controvertin" evidence. As to the issue of +urisdiction# the () has previously assumed administrative +urisdiction over the B! president. f the petitioners alle"e that the B! terminated them as an act of reprisal and with malice or bias# this would constitute "ross abuse of authority and serious misconduct E warrantin" the use of the ()9s supervisory powers over the B!. &astly# even if there was no wron"ful act# $ is ordered to transfer the funds of the savin"s and loan association to an account in their name to prevent the appearance and suspicion of impropriety. /. &ross $gnorance of the Law 5e&$& C n)$ct ,&. 5$)%e I*$4ina) C. - n? n C2'1 SCRA 61'D Facts: 1espondent +ud"e was char"ed with "ross i"norance of the law. He refused to suspend the mayor due to criminal char"es a"ainst the latter for the crime of unlawful appointment. The +ud"e opined that an official cannot be suspended for somethin" that has happened in a previous term. (ettled +urisprudence says this only applies to administrative# not criminal cases.
23
24
25
26
Facts: $ char"ed A with committin" irre"ularities in a civil case for sum of money. n said case# a writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the effects seiBed were 2ept in <ud"e A9s house. The court investi"ator found that the writ was improperly issued because the alle"ations of fraud and attempts to abscond in the affidavit were bare assertions and not substantiated by the facts. Held: F 0:I. The writ was issued in error. But in order to merit a disciplinary sanction# the error or mista2e committed by a +ud"e should be patent# "ross# malicious# deliberate# or done in bad faith. Absent a clear showin" that the +ud"e has acted arrantly# the issue becomes +udicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of administrative punishment. <ud"e A is fined for storin" the effects in his house and their intent to char"e stora"e fees. <ud"es should avoid impropriety of the appearance of impropriety. G1e% 1i B Te1e&ita L 1ena ,. 5$)%e A) *+ Enc 4ien)a C"02 SCRA 6"2D Facts: (pouses &orena were evicted from the property of <ud"e :9s brother. They refused to vacate. The mayor invited the parties to a conciliation meetin" but they still refused. The owners allowed them to stay on the condition that they si"n a written promise to leave after the "race period. Hhen & refused# : phoned him and tried to convince him to si"n. & still refused# : then said: @m"a tarantado# mabulo2 2ayo sa 2alabosQA and slammed the phone down. & accuses : and his conspirators of abuse of authority for later throwin" them in +ail. Held: 1:!1 /A0I:I. Althou"h the char"es a"ainst : were refuted by evidence# the serious nature of the tas2s of +ud"es requires them to be circumspect in both their public and their private dealin"s. As they are @e*pected to rise above human frailtiesA they must# in all their activities# avoid not only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety. Hence# : should not have called & by Khone E which "ave the impression of undue pressure and influence. He should not have cursed & over the phone as a +ud"e9s behavior must be beyond reproach. O++ice + t:e C $1t A)4ini&t1at 1 ,&. C5$)%eD 7* 1entin S. Ba11 n C2'# SCRA "#6D Facts: <ud"e Barron was arrested durin" an entrapment operation when he tried to solicit bribes from an American national in e*chan"e for rulin" in the latter9s favor in a pendin" case. Held: <ud"e dismissed. A +ud"e should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety# comportin" himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. The conduct of respondent shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demandin" and receivin" money from a party,liti"ant constitutes serious misconduct in office. t
27
28
29