3. YOUNG vs.

BATUEGAS
FACTS: YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana. BATUEGAS, et al are
the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case. On Dec 13, 2000, BATUEGAS filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a
person in authority and, as such, is now under detention. Upon verification with the NBI,
YOUNG discovered that the accused surrendered on Dec 14,2000 (not 13). BATUEGAS, et al in
their defense alleged that on Dec 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued
against their client, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. They immediately fetched
accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy
traffic, they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day. That was why the Certificate of Detention
indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 and not 13. As to lack of notice, YOUNG
being a private prosecutor, is not entitled to such as only the State and City prosecutors should be
given notices. Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months. IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether Batuegas is guilty of falsehood and should be suspended.
RULING: Yes, a lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission that he will do
no falsehood norconsent to the doing of any in court. As officer of the court, his high vocation is
to correctly inform thecourt upon the law and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct
conclusion. The courts, on theother hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. His lawyers solemn duty is to defend his client, his
conduct must never be at the expense of truth. In the case at bar, BATUEGAS, et al feel short of
the duties and responsibilities expected of the members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion
for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered.
To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the
Court strongly condemns. BATUEGAS, et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception.
Hence, BATUEGAS, et al should be suspended for 6 months.

4. HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO VS FLORIDO
FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James
Benedict C. Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating
his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of
Appeals Resolution. Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido, the complainant, averred that she was the
legitimate spouse of the respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido, the respondent, but because of
the estranged relation, they lived separately. They have two children whom the complainant has
the custody. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage; meanwhile there, was
another related case pending in the Court of Appeals. Sometime in the middle of December
2001, respondent went to complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded
that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He showed complainant a
photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his
motion for temporary child custody. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed
her that he had not received any motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent.
Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of
Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the resolution
closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing
something amiss, she refused to give custody of their children to respondent. The complainant
verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification dated January 18,
2005[from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering complainant to surrender
custody of their children to respondent had been issued.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florido was liable for making false court resolution.
RULING: Yes. A lawyer who used a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals is presumed to
have participated in its fabrication. Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. 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. Even with due recognition then that counsel is
expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the
expense of the truth.