CORONA, J.: A.C. No. 6198
September 15, 2006

Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate General’s
Service is administratively charged of unethical conduct for
having uttered a falsehood in open court during a hearing of a
Civil Case No. Q-99-38778, an action for damages filed by
complainant Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military
officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel.
At one point, during the civil case hearing on Feb 19, 2002 he
stated that there was an agreement between the parties that
if they withdraw the case against Dr. Maligaya, the latter will
also withdraw all the cases against his clients.
So, with that understanding, Dr. Maligaya even retired and is
now receiving pension.
The presiding Judge Daway, ordered Atty. Doronilla to put
statements in
and “file
the appropriate
Weeks passed but Atty. Doronilla submitted no such pleading
or anything else to substantiate his averments.
Thus, on April 2002 a complaint was filed against Atty.
Doronilla in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline for committing a violation of:


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
During the investigation, Atty. Doronilla admitted there is no
agreement but there was a proposal to dismiss and to
withdraw all the cases.
He said that he said it “to settle the case amicably among
comrades in arms without going to trial”. In due time,
investigating commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted a
report and recommendation finding Atty. Doronilla guilty of
purposely stating a falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
government military service as legal officer for a period of
three months.”
This was adopted and approved in toto by the IBP Board of

Issue: WON Atty. Doronilla is in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and WON the suspension is proper.

Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical
conduct. Not only that, he violated the lawyer’s oath to “do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court,” of which
Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements.
His act infringed on every lawyer’s duty to “never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.”
The explanation submitted by Atty. Doronilla, remarkable only
for its speciousness, cannot absolve him.
There is nothing in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among
disputants that, in any way, makes it necessary under any
circumstances for counsel to state as a fact that which is not
The suspension referred to in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, means only suspension from the practice of
law—it would be improper for the Court, as a penalty for a
lawyer’s breach of legal ethics and the lawyer’s oath, his
suspension from his employment in the Judge Advocate
General’s Service.
After all, the only purpose of this administrative case is to
determine Atty. Doronilla’s liability as a member of the legal
profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military
There were also mitigating circumstances considered such as
his admission to his deceit, the fact that there was no material
damage to the complainant and it being his first offense.
Thus, the penalty was amended to suspension from practice
of law for two (2) months, with warning against repetition of
similar misconduct.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO MONTHS. He is
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct
shall be dealt with more severely.

NATURE: Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young, private prosecutor in
“People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana, Jr.”, pending in
RTC Manila, filed a Verified Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment
against Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino
for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and
violating the lawyer’s oath.
On December 13, 2000, Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for
accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that
the “accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority.

courts. Ceasar G. Young learned that he surrendered only on December 14. as lawyers. as shown by the Certificate of Detention Susa. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court” and he shall “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. J. 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects. are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them while a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause.” a lawyer should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. we held: It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered to the police authorities on the same date “tentatively” scheduled for the hearing of the application for bail. In Comia vs. Antona. They violated their oath when they resorted to deception. .    In the case at bar. 2001. calendared the motion on December 15. hence. Sebastian v. Carpio. which shows him to be wanting in moral character. Disposition: Attys. they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a. 2000 TF there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. As such. Accordingly. 2001. the certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14. Bajar AC No. Ceasar G. the next day. probity. he is now under detention. they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender but due to heavy traffic.     To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly condemn. Miguelito Nazareno V. referred to IBP for investigation. on the other hand. upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. the prosecution was served with notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date. Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct. were devoid of personality to ask such specific affirmative relief from the court. September 7.      A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. they furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing thereof. 2000. it does not absolve respondent judge from administrative liability considering that he should not have accorded recognition to the application for bail filed on behalf of persons who. On December 7. Batuegas. 2000. Atty. the Investigating Commissioner VillanuevaMaala submitted a report and recommended Atty. Although a motion may be heard on short notice. In August 13. Moreover.” Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered. his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. in honesty. the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed under Rule 15. 3731. Llantino be suspended from the practice of their profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6) months ISSUE: WON Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood HELD: YES. report and recommendation or decision. Obviously. they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. 2007. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused. such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. Verily. such supervening event is of no bearing and immaterial. they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Batuegas and Atty. WRT the lack of notice of hearing. Nevertheless. Llantino are found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. and good demeanor. at that point. namely > lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant > violation of the three-day notice rule > failure to attach the Certificate of Detention     According to respondents on December 13. Miguelito Nazareno V. they contend that Young was not entitled to any notice. the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila. To our mind. 4(2) of the Rules of Court. thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.m. Amily A. Manuel S. whether in his professional or private capacity. respondents failed to show any good cause to justify the nonobservance of the three-day notice rule. Sec. they are SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment ordering Tanlioco’s ejectment subject to the payment of disturbance compensation. The Court reiterated that Bajar should comply with the 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992Resolutions. Bajar filed a Court Manifestation that she substantially complied with the Court’s order as to her defences. Bajar contended that "she had comported herself as [an] officer of the court. Bajar to comment on the complaint lodged against her. HELD: Yes. On 7 October 1992. 2. Tanlioco is an agricultural lessee of a land owned by Manuel Sebastian’s wife and sister-in-law (landowners). In the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution. 4. as Tanlioco’s counsel. she only submitted the rejoinder on 11 November 1993 after she was detained at the NBI for five days for failure to heed the Court’s order. FACTS:                  Atty.  The evidence presented shows that respondent failed to comply with the Court’s lawful orders in two instances: 1. The NBI detained respondent for five days and released her on 25 October1993. The want of intention is not an excuse for the disrespectful language used. Respondent uttered disrespectful language and shouted at everybody during the hearing on 25 May 1995. Bajar submitted her comment. Investigating Commissioner Plaridel C."       The Court had also resolved to impose a fine of P500 or imprisonment of five days and to require respondent to complywith the 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992 Resolutions. Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. Bajar filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. Atty. The duplication or multiplication of suits should be avoided. the Court issued a Resolution ordering the arrest of Bajar for detention at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for five days. On 1 March 1993. the Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for hearing and decision. The Court also required respondent to Comment on the complainant’s 2 June 1992 Manifestation. respondent was required to file a rejoinder within 10 days from notice. Atty. . The RTC’s judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Bajar also alleged that she was merely protecting the interest of Tanlioco as she was sworn to do so in her oath of office. Investigating Commissioner Jose enumerated respondent’s violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility that rendered her unfit to continue the practice of law: 1. On 10 November 1993. In February 1993. Atty. Bajar claimed that complainant had no legal personality to file this case. the Court issued a Resolution stating that the administrative case against respondent "has not been mooted and nothing set out in her ‘Manifestation’ excuses her failure to obey this Court’s Resolutions of 25 March 1992 and 7 October1992. The RTC dismissed the complaint due to res judicata and lack of cause of action. On 11 November 1993. 3." On 22 November 1995. Bajar. On 20 October 1993. the Court issued a resolution requiring Atty. Bajar filed a Rejoinder. On 18 November 1991. the NBI arrested respondent. the Court ordered Bajar to show cause why she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to comply with the Court’s 25 March 1992 Resolution. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bajar advised the Court that she had transferred to the Public Attorney’s Office and since she was no longer a "BALA lawyer. Bajar has violated Rule 10. After the Second Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Comment. The landowners filed an Ejectment case against Tanlioco (tenant) on the basis of a conversion order of the land use from agricultural to residential. On 25 March 1992. Bajar is guilty of the wilful disobedience of the order of the Court which is sufficient cause forsuspension or disbarment. However. "the cases involved in this proceeding had become moot and academic. Jose (Investigating Commissioner Jose) submitted his report and recommendation to the IBP. The case raised the same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since she misused the rules of procedure through forum-shopping to obstruct the administration of justice. On 29 September 1993. and respondent’s acts were tantamount to forum-shopping which is a reprehensible manipulation of court processes and proceedings. Bajar is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform who represented Fernando Tanlioco (Tanlioco) in numerous cases which raised the same issues. Respondent appealed a case for purposes of delay which amounted to an obstruction of justice. filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the conversion order. the Court issued a Resolution requiring Bajar to file a Rejoinder within 10 days from notice. at the risk of being disciplined by the latter if only to impart truth and justice.

Her suspension is consequently warranted. Unions jointly submitted proposals for a modified renewal of their respective CBA contracts w/c were due to expire on 9/30 negotiations were conducted but snagged by deadlock on issue of union shop. Employees Ass’n-NATU. Bajar violated the proscription in Canon 19. respondent alleged that she had substantially complied with the Court’s orders. He was also made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Co. In her manifestation. Corporate Sec and Legal Asst in the Legal Dept. he engaged into a fight with one of the strikers and both of them suffered injuries. She instead submitted a manifestation on 3 February 1993 or almost four months thereafter. it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof Bajar’s failure to comply with the Court’s directive to file a Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes gross misconduct. we may be forced to obtain your replacement. Insular Life Bldg Employees Ass’n-NATU) while still members of the Federation of Free Workers. WHEREFORE . EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU V THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. When they left FFW.. LTD. Otherwise. obstinate. or unlawful conduct on the part of the person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of a cause. flagrant. inadequately. CASTRO. and if there are no criminal charges against you. Companies sent individually to the strikers another letter which states “If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group Companies. Bajar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE YEARS effective from notice. A Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request. January 30. The Court defined gross misconduct as "any inexcusable. we are giving you until June 2 to report for work at the home office.             In the 7 October 1992 Court Resolution. Bajar’ s conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. Bajar also violated Canon19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. or selectively. the Court in its 1 March 1993 Resolution stated that nothing set out in respondent’s manifestation excused her failure to obey the Court’s Resolutions. Ltd. Unions then filed on 01/27/1958 notice of strike for ”deadlock on collective bargaining” Unions dropped their demands regarding security but the Companies still refused to negotiate They tried negotiating but with no satisfactory results Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what they considered as unfair labor practices Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of Insular Life Bldg Companies through the Acting Manager Olbes sent to each of the strikers a letter specifying incentives should they decide to go back to work Garcia and Abella (Chief of Personnel Records Section) tried to penetrate the picket lines. with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. the Companies filed criminal charges against strikers and they also filed a petition for injunction.. Ltd. or intentional purpose.” . in the CBA with the Unions. respondent Atty. When Garcia approached the picket line. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. CFI Mla granted injunction. and Enaje became personnel manager of the Companies. FGU Insurance Group) Lawyers of the Unions include Enaje and Garcia (Sec-treasurer of FFW). nor should it be complied with partially.2. entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with these COMPANIES (Insular Life Assurance Co. Companies organized 3 bus-loads of employees. respondent was required to comment on complainant’s manifestation. the Companies then hired them and Garcia became Asst. Alleging that some non-strikers were injured. FGU Insurance Group Workers and Employees Ass’nNATU. Clearly. It is evident from the records that Bajar filed other cases to thwart the execution of the final judgment in the Ejectment case. Bajar’ s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Emily A. shameful." It is a "conduct that is generally motivated by a premeditated." Bajar’ s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character. including a photographer who succeeded in penetrating the picket lines causing injuries to picketers. Bajar’s acts constitute gross misconduct and wilful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. 1971 NATURE: Appeal by certiorari to review a decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations dismissing the Unions’ complaint FACTS                 The following UNIONS (Insular Life Assurance Co. LTD. However.

but all non-strikers were readmitted immediately.” 1. without requiring clearances. During negotiations in Dept of Labor. When they did report for work. b. i. misquoted a SC decision in the case of Lopez Sr v. WON the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice a) In sending out letters individually directed to the strikers b) For discriminating against the striking members of the Unions in the matter of readmitting employees after the strike c) For dismissing officials and members of the Unions without giving them the benefit of investigation and the opportunity to present their side 2. 1958 to date of actual reinstatement 3. It is clear that the main reason for the strike was “when it became clear that management will not negotiate in good faith.     It is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate with his employees individually. Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is actually part of the immediately succeeding paragraph in the SC decision. Another letter was sent individually and by registered special delivery mail threatening them with dismissal if they didn’t report for work on June 2.. Totality of Conduct Doctrine: Expressions of opinion by an employer. the Presiding Judge of the CIR. were dismissed.” c.a) YES. h.”. they refused to answer the Unions’ demands en toto. they were still refused admission. Martinez used “For it is settled that. g.  Free speech protection under the Constitution isinapplicable where the expression of opinion by the employer or his agent contains a promise of benefit.. j. “For it must be remembered. The first letter contains promises of benefits to employees.     The companies are guilty of discrimination in their process of rehiring. e. even after these employees have secured the required clearances. c. But employees decided to call of the strike and to report back to work on June 2. a screening committee refused to admit 63 members of the Unions on ground of pending criminal charges. the Companies readily readmitted non-strikers who also had criminal charges. d. In the respondents’ brief. Before Unions’ submission of proposals for renewal of CBAs. Before readmitting. Strikers were individually sent letters inducing them to return to work with promises of special privileges. . or lack of it. or threats or reprisal. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass’n: a. the second letter contains threats to obtain replacements. Criminal charges were brought upon picketers. otherwise new employees would be engaged to perform their jobs. It is an act of interference for the employer to send a letter to all employees notifying them to return to work at a specific time. counsels for respondents quoted the CIR’s decision    ISSUES 1. except for 3. An injunction was obtained from CFI. WON the officials and members of the Unions are to be reinstated with full back wages. After notice to strike was served on the Companies. in connection with the changes in the agreement. a. They refused to readmit strikers with pending criminal charges. the original reads. Companies required them to secure clearances from the City Fiscal’s Office and to be screened by a management committee CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice CIR dismissed the complaint Relevant to the assigned topic (read pages 277-280!) Martinez. on the picket lines. which resulted in injuries on the part of picketers. b. though innocent in themselves.      All of the more than 120 crim charges. At the same time. When almost all were cleared by fiscal’s office. from June 2. Although the union is on strike.. were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered. compelling them to resign from unions. The circumstance that strikers later decided to return to work on account of injunction cannot alter the intrinsic quality of the letters which tended to interfere with the employees’ right to engage in lawful concerted activity in the form of strike. They even separated active from the less active unionists on the basis of their militancy. they reclassified 87 employees as supervisors.b) YES. the employer is still under the obligation to bargain with the union as the employees’ bargaining representative. 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the original. WON Presiding Judge Martinez and counsels of respondents are to be cited for contempt for misquoting a Supreme Court decision HELD 1.. respondents hired former legal counsels of petitioners. Three truckloads of nonstrikers crashed through the picket line. f.

2001 the IBP investigation commissioner recommended the suspension of respondent for two (2) years because they have found enough evidence to prove his violation of Canon 8.Ferrer. Ferrer filed an answer concomitant with his motion to dismiss. appellate courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation. and be saved precious time in finding out whether citations are correct. Barandon. This is because “only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction.      The misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to mislead. Imperial) Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted. Atty. and the mere act of placing the power of reinstatement in their hands is a form of discrimination. 1958. While there was this constant clash between the complainant and the respondent on December 29. Disposition Decision of the CIR is reversed and set aside. the incident was shady because no help was given to the victims and that respondent denied knowing the driver of said taxi. YES The members and officials of the Unions went on strike because of the unfair labor practices committed by the Companies. In his answercontains the improbability of the charges against him because he could have not said those remarks without being reprimanded while the court was in session. it is the bounden duty of courts. Record shows that not a single dismissed striker was given the opportunity to defend himself against the supposed charges. they were discriminatorily dismissed. otherwise he would be replaced. upon the invitation of their employers. the usage of threatening phrases before the start of a hearing such as ―…patayan kung patayan. Also. for offenses such as the use of offensive language when insinuating that the complainant presented a falsified document in court. 2000.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Barandon without bothering to check the facts and lastly the plethora of cases he was facing that time predominantly the one that deals with sexual harassment. Barandon filed a complaint-affidavit with the IBP seeking the disbarment. to the detriment of other courts. NO. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from reporting the accident to the proper authorities.    There are 3 conditions for readmission of the strikers: 1. All employees are considered to have complied with first and third condition.c) YES. 3. report for work on June 2.” (Miiranda v. Atty. 2001 Atty. accusing Atty. 2. lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. were able to secure the required clearances. to copy it verbatim and to incorporate it in their brief. Barandon boarded a taxi that was owned by defendant’s son a nd it was involved in an accident. Atty. FERRER. They are now entitled to reinstatement with back pay because when they reported back for work. In an anticipatory effort to exculpate themselves from charges of discrimination in rehiring. they even delegated the power to readmit to a committee composed of Abella and Garcia. SR. filing a fabricated charge against Atty. 2002 the IBP board of governors accepted the recommendations of the investigation commissioner with the reduction of one (1) year from the suspension. kasamaang lahat ng pamilya. Counsels of respondents have the prima facie right to rely on the quotation as it appears in the Judge’s decision. 2010) FACTS:  1. March 26. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. BARANDON. Import of sentences in the quotation is substantially the same as the cited decision. On October 10.       On January 11. the offended party in the falsification case vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the document has been falsified and other conflicting stories against what Atty.   ATTY.01 and 7. he must be interested in continuing his work with the companies. Both were involved in unpleasant incidents with the picketers during the strike. 5768. the decisions and rulings of SC may lose their proper and correct meaning. On June 29. judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same wordfor-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. suspension or proper disciplinary action against Atty. except three. ATTY. Sr. 2.‖. (A.C. Also. no criminal charges against him. JR v. Barandon filed.  The Companies refused to take the employees back on account of their “acts of misconduct” even if all. 3.. Ferrer violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: Yes . No. Respondents are ordered to reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively similar positions with back wages. In citing SC’s decisions and rulings.

      The motion he filed contained insults attacking the NLRC. Atty. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic. Atty. it should always be dignified and respectful. Atty. that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility applies only suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinary matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it and that Rule X of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions against misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in cases before it. replete with implied accusations of partiality. AUSTRIA MARTINEZ] FACTS       Atty. fairness sand candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. whether in public or private life. Case No. to behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. 2006. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit any justification. particularly rule 7.              Atty. Ferrer violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy. attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity. impropriety and lack of diligence. ISSUE: Whether or not Alar violated the CPR. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. Atty. its commissioners. and misconduct in the performace of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court. before the public and the court. Ferrer violated Canon 7. which cannot be justified. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. He deserves not only a warning but also a fine of P 5. one of the respondents. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed with the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. specifically. implying that the NLRC can be bought. NLRC’s First Division upheld the dismissal. Rule 7. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Finally he asserted that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to lawyers practicing at the NLRC. inter alia. The assertion that the NLRC not being a court. On appeal. Atty. casting doubt on itsmoral and intellectual integrity. HELD: Yes. befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold. In his Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI). All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession. Ferrer uttered the invectives against Barandon with intent to annoy. The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Ferrer for one year as ordered by the IBP-CBD. NG vs ALAR Case Digest [Adm. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude. incriminate. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. misbehavior. humiliate. the latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC Commissioners are not judges nor justices and the Code of Judicial Conduct similarly do not apply to them.01. He used improper and offensive language.0000. and discredit the former. hence they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. filed a disbarment case against Alar before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for such misbehavior. 7252 (CBD 05-1434). Ferrer ought to have realized that such kind of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Atty. A lawyer’s language should always be dignified and respectful. it must always be dignified and respectful. in Rule 8. not being part of the judiciary. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic. Atty. Alar used improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the Labor Arbiter and the ponente of the NLRC decision. November 22.03 which prohibit lawyers. Johnny Ng.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. befitting the dignity of the legal profession. Alar contended. arrogance. not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the judiciary . The counter-complaint is dismissed because there was no position paper submitted to substantiate the claims The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC.

specifically. The Court finds Atty. Atty. The Court not only put to serious question its own integrity and competence but also jeopardized its own campaign against graft and corruption undeniably pervading the judiciary . of the Rules of Court. Sangco. SARMIENTO] Facts:     The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against Atty. as a former judge of an inferior court. much less. as an open assault upon the Court's honor and integrity. Sangco to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language. Spouses Sangalang vs. Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. is unavailing. They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. IAC and Ayala Corporation. particularly. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. he has done an enormous disservice to the integrity of the highest tribunal and to the stability of the administration of justice in general. Atty. and to the records alone. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution. Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution. the Court held that respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC. 1989. counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and Lutgarda Sangalang. No. and not to outside influences. but not to a license to insult the Court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta ad hominem . Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration. In Lubiano v. 71169. the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to them. the influence of any of the parties. In that event.    IN RE ALMACEN CASTRO. He should be aware that because of his accusations.” disparaging. J. and uncalled-for. the Court issued a Resolution. Held: YES   In rendering its judgment. however. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. August 30. Sangco in contempt. His suggestions that the Court might have been guilty of graft and corruption in acting on these cases are not only unbecoming. . an oath-bound servant of the law.    Atty. “. but his success will not justify indictments of bribery by the other party. Hence. it is the Court's duty "to act to preserve the honor and dignity . Cezar Sangco. Sangco is entitled to his opinion. whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.” The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. his motion was denied. as well. but also deaf and dumb. the Court yielded to the records before it. Gordolla. he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. Eventually." On March 2." The Court in their "show-cause" Resolution. Clearly.R. . Atty. Sangco filed an explanation. they sought to hold Atty. His actions erode the public’s perception of the legal profession. 1989. but comes. . his act also constitutes malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice. . for resort to insulting language amounting to disrespect toward the Court within the meaning of Section 1. who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. of Rule 71. one party prevails. intemperate.” He also stated “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind. should know better that in any litigation. [G. . . J FACTS:         Issue: Whether or not the counsel’s act constitutes malpractice in violation of the Code’s (CPR) provision on the use of scandalous offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts. his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. Atty. 1989. and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession. requiring. among other things.  and that consequently. . On February 2.

As a veteran lawyer. Goco. For one thing. It is true that a lawyer. Urdaneta City Mayor Amadeo R. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. Sahagun filed an Answer with compulsorycounterclaim and motion to dismiss on the ground that Del Castillo has no legal standing to sue. Goco and Asean Pacific Planners Construction and Development Corporation (APPCDC) represented by Cesar D. and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner. grossly disrespectful and derogatory. Parayno entered into five contracts for the preliminary design.” He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is “the complainant. that such is insolent. and his complaint filed by Atty. Sahagun in his behalf. Atty. and directed the defendants to answer thecity’s complaint. against respondents City of Urdaneta and Ceferino J. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . Oscar C. Del Castillo. and petitioners Asean Pacific Planners (APP) represented by Ronilo G. For minimal work. APP and APPCDC claimed that the contracts are valid. Peralta was admitted and consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo and Urdaneta City. Pangasinan.” Almacen was however unapologetic. who filed the city’s Answer. Branch45. he should have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court. but of sound judicial discretion. in his capacity as taxpayer. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide. .  Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. Jorito C. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. HELD: Yes. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. QUISUMBING. In the case at bar. the Lazaro Law Firm entered its appearance as counsel for Urdaneta City In its Order dated September 11. construction and management of a four-storey twin cinema commercial center and hotel involving a massive expenditure of public funds amounting to P250 million. 2008 FACTS:  ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined. Capalad. in an open and public hearing.  ASEAN Pacific Planners vs. . as well as of the judiciary. In their Answer. funded by a loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB).        This case stemmed from a Complaint for annulment of contracts with prayer for preliminary prohibitory injunction and temporary restraining order filed by respondent Waldo C. City of Urdaneta. contemptuous. After pre-trial. Capalad was dropped as defendant.. For respondent Ceferino J. It also granted Capalad’s motion to expunge all pleadings filed by Atty. Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. Capalad doing business under the name JJEFWA Builders. the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City. . both as an officer of the court and as a citizen. and so there is no need to fully explain the court’s denial.” It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right. It also granted the prayer to drop the city as defendant and admitted its complaint for consolidation with Del Castillo’s complaint.             The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. and the independence of the bar. Jr. Almacen was suspended indefinitely. prosecutor and Judge. admitted the entry of appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm and granted the withdrawal of appearance of the City Prosecutor.J. the contractor was allegedly paid P95 million. Perez. the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion. 2002. 162525. September 23. Del Castillo alleged that then Urdaneta City Mayor Rodolfo E. has always been encouraged by the courts. GR No. the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for. joined in the defense and asserted that the contracts were properly executed by then Mayor Parayno with prior authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

notice is taken of the offensive language used by Attys. Capalad filed a complaint for annulment of the contracts. Sahagun and Antonio B. Sahagun further indicted himself.013 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. JACOBA Facts:               This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Judge Ubaldino A. Atty. pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na.R. WHEREFORE . Velasco-Jacoba claimed that "His Honor knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject Motion. (4) ORDER the City Prosecutor to represent Urdaneta City in Civil Case No. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if it were the DARAB The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Jacoba complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition. Similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.03.000 each on Attys.1 11. 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. payable to this Court within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision LACUROM vs. Sahagun violatedrule 11. Thus.           At first. Ellis Jacoba("Jacoba") stopped her and said "O. we IMPOSE a fine of P2. (5) AFFIRM theRTC in admitting the complaint of Capalad. came this STUNNING and SUDDENREVERSAL Clearly. and (6) PROHIBIT Atty. U-7388. Comments and Answer. Sahagun and Antonio B. wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July 2001 motion. except for the length of suspension which the IBP Board reduced to three months.Finally. Oscar C. SP No. the RESOLUTION is an INSULT to the Judiciary and an ANACHRONISM in the Judicial Process.2and 19. in "trusting blind faith" on her husband of 35 years with whom she "entrusted her whole life and future Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty of contempt without conducting any hearing. Lacurom issued a Resolution reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. Escalante in their pleadings before us and the Court of Appeals. 76170.ISSUE: WON Atty. Sahagun from representingCapalad and EXPUNGE all pleadings that he filed in behalf of Capalad. we should expunge all pleadings filed by Atty. 2003 andFebruary 4. liable under the Code of . Jacoba and Atty. HELD. Sahagun cannot represent totally conflicting interests. Oscar C. -In her Explanation.” Atty. (2) SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated April 15. She accused Judge Lacurom of harboring "a personal vendetta. abstain from offensive language before the courts. already a senior citizen.04.000 each payable to this Court within ten days from notice and we remind them that they should observe and maintain the respect due to the Court of Appeals and judicial officers. we (1) GRANT the petition. “an incompetent judge. He said that the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the case shows its “impatience and readiness to punish petitioners for a perceived slight on it s dignity” and such dismissal “smacks of retaliation and does not augur for the cold neutrality and impartiality demanded of the appellate court. Escalante a fine of P2. (3) DENY the entry of appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm in Civil Case No. On the other hand. Yes." ordering her imprisonment despiteher status as "senior lady lawyer of the IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter. Certainly." Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any "conscious or deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the Honorable Court-Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five days Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration order. Issue: WON respondents’ ProfessionalResponsibility. in their view. and a grandmother many times over. Atty. Sahagun andAntonio B. They also accused the Court of Appeals of protecting. Atty.Sahagun in behalf of Capalad Before we close. and not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record. U-7388 and EXPUNGE all pleadings it filed as counsel of UrdanetaCity. She recounted that onher way out of the house for an afternoon hearing. Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. baka mahuli” She signed the pleading handed to her without reading it. They unfairly called the Court of Appeals a “court of technicalities” for validly dismissing their defectively prepared petition. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba Complainant charged respondents with violation of Rules 11. Oscar C. we impose upon Attys.” Accordingly.04 of the Code of Prof. Lacurom against respondent-spouses Atty. Oscar C. Escalantefor their use of offensive language. and after a very questionable SHORT period of time.” In explaining the “concededly strong language. Sahagun represents petitioners who claim that the contracts are valid. Responsibility. Ellis F. records will show that the undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case." Judge Lacurom issued another order this time directing Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in contempt. IBP Commissioner recommended the suspension IBP Board of Governors adopted Recommendation.

-Shortly after the filing of the 30 July 2001 motion but before its resolution. In Administrative Case No. which is a ground for subjecting her to disciplinary action-We now consider the evidence as regards Jacoba. however. we SUSPEND Atty. Velasco-Jacoba insists. that she signed the motion onlybecause of her husband’s request but she did not know its contents beforehand. in fact." we find Velasco-Jacoba’s version of the facts more plausible. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this Decision. 2594. The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hook his Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain adenial of his wife’s account. it should always be dignifiedand respectful. Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating that he "trained his guns and fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental. Instead. b. unlike Jacoba’s defense which was raised only after a considerable time had elapsed from the eruption of the controversy. This violation is an act of falsehood before the courts. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic. Jacoba assisted his client in instituting two administrative cases against Judge Lacurom-Court’s attention is drawn to the fact that the timing of the filing of these administrative cases could very well raise the suspicion that the cases were intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom. His name does not appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. Ellis F. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law for two(2) months effective upon finality of this Decision . therefore. This petition for certiorari anchors some of its arguments on the premise that the motion was. He asserts the inadmissibility of Velasco-Jacoba’s statement pointing to him as the author of the motion. Velasco-Jacoba in effect certified that she had read it. her reaction to the events was immediate and spontaneous. Jacoba’s handiworkRespondents nonetheless try to exculpate themselves by saying that every remark motion was warranted. we suspended Jacoba from the practice of law for a period of six months WHEREFORE.        Jacoba filed a Manifestation praying that JudgeLacurom await the outcome of the petition for certiorari before deciding the contempt charge against him. for two reasons: a. and it was not for the purpose of delaying the case. By signing the 30 July 2001 motion.Respondent spouses have both been the subject of administrative cases before this Court. The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration. she knew it to be meritorious. befitting the dignity of the legal profession. We disagree Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. We also SUSPEND Atty.Held: YES         There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-Jacoba appears . By Velasco-Jacoba’s own admission. she violated Sec 3 of Rule 7.