Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PANGASINAN ELECTRIC
MONTEMAYOR (2007)
COOP
VS
AYAR
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint filed by
Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I)
charging Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor with
negligence in handling the cases assigned
to him which caused unwarranted financial
losses to the complainant, approximately in
the total amount of sixteen million pesos
(PhP 16,000,000).
Records show that for several years, PANELCO I, a
rural electric cooperative with principal office
address at Brgy. San Jose, Bani, Pangasinan,
retained the services of Atty. Juan Ayar
Montemayor as its counsel.
PANELCO I stated that while acting as counsel for
the cooperative, respondent was negligent in
handling its cases.
1. A case was assigned to Montemayor wherein
the RTC decision was adverse to PANECO I and
was appealed to the CA. CA dismissed the
appeal for failure of Montemayor to serve
and file the required number of copies
within the time provided by the Rules of
Court. RTC and CA rendered a decision wherein it
became final and executory and P2,179,209.18
was paid by the complainant.
2. Another case was assigned to him and again
was appealed to the CA. CA considered the
CASTANEDA VS AGO
FACTS:
Petitioners Venancio Castaeda and Nicetas
Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor
Ago to recover certain machineries. And a
judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs,
ordering Ago to return the machineries or pay
definite sums of money. Ago appealed and the
court affirmed previous judgment. After remand,
the trial court issued, a writ of execution for the
sum of P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of
execution but his motion was denied, and levy
was made on Ago's house and lots located in
Quezon City.
(5
times
in
the
4.
5. IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVII2006-120 which declared that respondent dismally
failed to live up to the exacting standards of the
law profession and suspended respondent from
the practice of law for one year with a warning
that repetition of similar conduct will warrant a
more severe penalty. Hence the petition.
3.
He dropped Ramon Alisbo's co-plaintiffs and
impleaded them as defendants. Otherwise, the
complaint would have been defective only in part.
Issue:
Whether
Atty.
Jalandoon
be
held
responsible for the dismissal of the case and had
betrayed his clients trust. Yes.
Ruling: Attorney Jalandoon, betrayed his client Ramon
Alisbo's trust and did not champion his cause with that
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion that a lawyer
is obligated to give to every case that he accepts from
a client. There is more than simple negligence resulting
in the extinguishment and loss of his client's right of
action; there is a hint of duplicity and lack of candor in
his dealings with his client, which call for the exercise
of this Court's disciplinary power.
ALFONSOVISITACION
vs.
VICTOR
MANIT,
substituted by his widow LEONARDA MANIT and
daughters
VIRGINIA
DUNGOG,
VICTORIA
BATUCAN and MERLINDA MANIT (1969)
Facts:
The case originated on January 18, 1956 when Alfonso
Visitacion filed a case against Victor Manit to hold him
manner in which he conducted Maricris Naderas crossexamination; and [c] his failure not only to present
evidence for the accused but to inform the accused of
his right to do so, if he desires.
The duty to make the accuseds right to counsel
meaningful and its enjoyment effective rests largely on
the defense counsel. While a lawyer may, in
accordance with the canons of the profession and his
duty to aid in the administration of justice, properly
decline to handle a civil suit when he is convinced that
it is intended to harass or injure the opposite party or
to work oppression or wrong, an attorney for the
defense in a criminal action, whether as counsel de
parte or counsel de oficio, has the right and the duty to
render effective legal assistance to the accused,
irrespective of his personal opinion as to the guilt of his
client. It is only by performing his duties faithfully and
well will the right to counsel becomes meaningful. The
Court held:
The right to counsel must be more than just the
presence of a lawyer in a courtroom or there
propounding of standard questions and objections. The
right to counsel means that the accused is amply
accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who
commits himself to the cause of the defense an acts
accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement
by the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the
trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the
basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on
the case and his knowing the fundamental procures,
essential laws and existing jurisprudence. The right of
an accused to counsel finds substance in the
performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity
to his client. Tersely put, it means an efficient and truly
decisive legal assistance and not a simply perfunctory
representation.
MORE DISCUSSION BY THE COURT:
Indeed, cross
examining Oleby Nadera becomes indispensable if her
testimony is viewed together with the results of her
medical examination. Oleby Nadera claimed that she
was last raped by her father on April 24, 1995. [35] Yet,
the medical examination conducted on her on April 30,
1996[36] revealed the presence of spermatozoa in the
vaginal canal on that date. This was a year after the
last rape allegedly committed by her father. This may
not necessarily mean that she was lying when she said
that on April 24, 1995 she had been raped by accusedappellant, but it does indicate a necessity-that of cross
examining her in order to ferret out the truth.
The same may be said of defense counsel's treatment
of Maricris' testimony. While she was cross examined
by defense counsel, the examination was at best a
half-hearted attempt to comply with a lawyer's
obligation, lacking the rigor and zeal required
considering that a man's life is at stake. It was
FACTS:
8.01. Generally.