You are on page 1of 3

jilo.bairan Bar Questions for Canon 10-11 Canon 10 1. 1972 bar exams.

Q: The strikers against the Phil-Am Management having thrown a pciket line, its lawyers immediately went to to CFI Court and was able to get an in unction against picketing o! its tenants leasing space in its building" The counsel o! the striking union, when his advice was sought, in!ormed the union leaders that they could sa!ely ignore such in unction, as it is the Court o! Industrial #elations and not such court that possesses urisdiction" Is such advice correct$ %hy$ A: &o" The advice given by the counsel o! the striking unuon is incorrect" 'awyers should obey court orders and processess and will!ul disregard thereo! will sub ect the lawyer not only to punishment !or contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well" In !act, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity o! the courts ans to show respect to their processes" Canon () o! the CP# states that *A lawyer owes candor, !airness and good!aith to the court*" 2. 2003 bar exams Q: The +C issued a resolution in a case pending be!ore it, re,uiring the petitioner to !ile within ten -(). days !rom notice, a reply to the respondents/s comment" Attorney A, representint the petitioner, !ailed to !ile the reply despite the lapse o! thirty -0). days !rom receipt o! the Court/s resolution" The +C dismissed the petition !or non-compliance with its resolution" Attorney A timely moved !or the reconsideration o! the dismissal o! the petition, claiming that his secretary, who was ,uite new in the o!!ice, !ailed to remind him o! the deadline within which to !ile a reply" #esolve A/s motion" A: Attorney A/s move !or the reconsideration o! the dismissal o! the petition should be denied" Attorney A cannot put the blame to his secretary" It is his duty to comply with the Court/s order to submit his reply to the respondent/s comment" It is not an e1cuse that his secretary !ailed to remind him o! the deadline within which to !ile a reply" A lawyer must be alert and attentive to when pleadings are due" 3. 1973 bar exams Q: In the appellant/s brie! !iled with the +upreme Court in an appeal by certiorari !rom a decision o! the CA, the appellant/s lawyer made his *+tatement o! Facts* appear as i! it is based on the !indings o! the !acts o! the CA" 2ut the *!acts* stated by him are merely based on his theory o! the case and on the evidence presented by him in the trial court, which the court merely restated and re ected as un!ounded" 3e !ollowed these *!acts* in his assignment o! errrors and arguments and his brie! sounded so convincing that the CA appear to have made a gross mistake in deciding against his client" 4pposing counsel pointed out the distortions and misstatement made by appellants counsel to mislead the Court, and moved that he be declared in contempt o! court and meted out the proper punishment"

#esolve the motion !or contempt and disciplinary action with reasons" A5 The motion !or contempt is meritorious" The action done by the appellant/s lawyer is a clear attempt o! misleading the court and it is e1pressly provided in Canon () #ule ()")( that *a lawyer shall not do any !alsehood, nor consent to the doing o! any in Court6 nor shall he misled or allow the Court to be misled by any arti!ice*" Any attempt to mislead the court is direct contempt" Contempt proceedings are distinct and separate !rom disciplinary or disbarment proceedings, there!ore, in addition to the sanctions !or the contemptuous behavior, the appellant/s counsel may be sub ect to !urther disciplinary action" Canon 11 1. 2006 bar exams. Q: In his petition !or certioraru !iled with the +upreme Court, Atty" 7i8on alleged that Atty" Padilla, a legal researcher in the Court o! Appeals, dra!ted the assailed 7ecision6 that he is ignorant o! the applicable laws6 and that he should be disbarred" Can Atty" 7i8on in castigating Atty" Padilla, be held liable !or unethical conduct against the Court o! Appeals$ A: 9es" Canon (( o! the Code o! Pro!essional #esponsibility provides that "A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by other". Atty" 7i8on should be reminded o! Canon (( and that the respect re,uired by Canon (( must also e1tend to the legal researcher who is a udicial o!!icer also" 2. 198 bar exams. Q: In a complaint !iled be!ore the +C againts :udge &ilo ;ana, said :udge was re!erred to as arbitrary, despotic, whimsical, capricious and an *ignoramus*" <pon learning o! said complaint, :udge ;ana immediately summoned the complainant and re,uired him to show cause why he should not be punished !or contempt !or the use o! such disrespect!ul language which casts dishonor upon, and degrades his integrity as a dispenser o! ustice" Finding complainant/s e1planation unsatis!actory, the udge sentenced him to ten -(). days imprisonment" 7iscuss the propriety, correctness and legality o! the :udge/s action on the premises" A: %hen a counsel makes accusations o! irregularities or mis!easance against a udge, e1pressly or impliedly by insinuations, he should be prepared to substantiate the accusations because it would appear that the counsel is merely attempting to hide his own inade,uacies and ommissions in order to escape the criticism o! his clients" A contemptuous language in pleadings directed against a particular udge but presented in another court or proceeding constitutes indirect contempt, but i! said pleading is submitted be!ore the same udge, it would be direct contempt" (Ang vs Castro, G.R. No. 66371, May 15, 1985.) 3. 1977 bar exams Q: 7istinguish direct contempt !rom indirect contempt"

A5 Indirect Contempt (rule 71 sec. 3) -- the contemnor may be punished only *a!ter charge in writing has been !iled, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himsel! or counsel*" The udgment in indirect contempt is appealable" 7irect Contempt (rule 71 sec. 1) -- respondent may be summarily ad udged in contempt" 4nly udgments o! contempts by MTCs, MCTCs and MeTCs are appealable" !. 1977 bar exams Q5 %hile the presiding :udge was still in his chamber studying the case o! the day/s calendar, a heated discussion ensued between the two lawyers in court waiting !or the session to start" Their commotion was so disturbing that incurred the ire o! the presiding udge who came out o! his chamber and held them !or contempt" Are the lawyers liable !or contempt$ A5 9es" "A person uilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedin s before the same! includin direspect toward the court! offensive personalities toward others! or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness! or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully re"uired to do so! may be summarily adjud ed in contempt by such court." (rule 71! sec.1 #$C). The lawyers also violated Canon (( o! the CP# "A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others." . 1978 bar exams Q: The presiding udge declared a 0)-minute recess, le!t the court room and repaired to his chambers to preside over a pre-trial con!erence" %hile the pre-trial con!erence was in progress, the opposing lawyers in another case engaged each other in a !ist !ight in the courtroom" The udge who was attracted by the commotion came out o! his chambers and held the lawyers guilty o! direct contempt, imposed upon each o! them imprisonment o! !ive days and a !ine o! P())"))" Is the act o! the udge in summarily holding the lawyers in direct contempt proper$ A: 9es" #ule =(, +ec"( o! the #ules o! Court" The lawyers also violated Canon (( o! the CP#"