LegalEthics:Chapter3CodeofProfessionalResponsibility

CASE
Seranavs.
Sandiganbayan

Dan

Youngvs.Batuegas

Jezz

FACTS
Facts:
Accusedmovantchargedforthecrimeofestafaisa
governmentscholarandastudentregentoftheUniversity
ofthePhillipines,Diliman,QuezonCity.Whileinthe
performanceofherofficialfunctions,sherepresentedto
formerPresidentEstradathattherenovationofthe
VinzonsHalloftheUPwillberenovatedandrenamedas
Pres.JosephEjercitoEstradaStudentHallandforwhich
purposeaccusedrequestedtheamountofP15,000,000.00.
PetitionerclaimsthattheSandiganbayanhadno
jurisdictionoverherpersonbecauseasaUPstudent
regent,shewasnotapublicofficerduetothefollowing:
1.)thatbeingmerelyamemberinrepresentationofthe
studentbodysinceshemerelyrepresentedherpeers;2.)
thatshewasasimplestudentanddidnotreceiveany
salaryasaUPstudentregent;and3.)shedoesnotfall
underSalaryGrade27.
TheOmbudsmancontendsthatpetitioner,asamemberof
theBORisapublicofficer,sinceshehadthegeneral
powersofadministrationandexercisethecorporate
powersofUP.Compensationisnotanessentialpartof
publicoffice.
Moreover,theCharteroftheUniversityofthePhilippines
revealsthattheBoardofRegents,towhich
accusedmovantbelongs,exclusivelyexercisesthegeneral
powersofadministrationandcorporatepowersinthe
university.Itiswellestablishedincorporationlawthatthe
corporationcanactonlythroughitsboardofdirectors,or
boardoftrusteesinthecaseofnonstockcorporations.
Lastly,petitionerscounselmisquotedhisreferenceto
Section4ofP.D.No.1606asaquotationfromSection4
ofR.A.No.3019.

ISSUE
WONthecounsel
misqoutedor
misrepresentthe
provisionofthelaw
undercanon10rule
10.2.

Atty. Walter Young filed a disbarment caseagainst Attys.

Ceasar Batuegas, Miguelito LlantinoandFranklin Susa for
allegedly committing falsehood in court and violatingthe

Did
respondentscounsel
commit deliberate

RULING
yes
Canon10.Alawyerowescandor,fairness
andhonestytotheCourt.
Rule 10.2
A lawyer shallnot knowingly misquote

or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the

language or the argument of opposing counsel,
or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperativebyrepealoramendment,or
assertasafactthatwhichhasnotbeenproved.

As a parting note, petitioners counsel, Renato G. delaCruz,

misrepresentedhisreference toSection4ofP.D.No.1606as
a quotation from Section 4 of R.A. No.3019.Areviewofhis
motion to quash, the instant petition for
certiorari and his
memorandum,unveilsthemisquotation. We urge petitioners
counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specificallyRule10.02oftheRulesstatingthat
"alawyershallnotmisquoteormisrepresent."

The Court stressed the importance of this rule in

Pangan v.
Ramos
, where Atty Dionisio D. Ramos used thenamePedro
D.D. Ramos in connection with a criminal case. The Court
ruledthat Atty.Ramos resorted todeceptionby usinganame
different from that with which he was authorized. We
severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a
repetitionmaywarrantsuspensionordisbarment.

Weadmonishpetitionerscounsel tobemorecarefuland
accurate in his citation. A lawyers conduct beforethe court
should be characterized by candor and fairness. The
administration ofjusticewouldgravelysufferiflawyersdonot
actwithcompletecandorandhonestybeforethecourt.

WHEREFORE
,thepetitionis
DENIED
forlackofmerit
.

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the IBPCBD

finding respondentscounsel guilty of committing deliberate
falsehood. Respondentscounsel craftily concealed the truth

Floridovs.Florido

Vince

GIST:
Childcustodygone
wrongusingfalseCA
resolution

lawyersoath.In a criminalcasewherecomplainantisthe
prosecutor and respondents Batuegas and Llantino were
counsel forthe accused,respondentsfiledamanifestation
with motionforbailon12/13/00allegingthataccusedhas
already surrendered to the NBI. Upon verification,
complainant learned that accused was actually
surrendered on 12/14/00. Respondent Susa, who is the
Clerk of Court, calendaredthehearingforthemotionfor
bailon12/15/00despitetheirregularity ofthesurrender,
which included the lack of notice of hearing to
complainant, violation of the 3day notice rule, and the
failure to attach the certificate of detention.
Respondentscounsel,intheircomment,contendthatthey
filed their motion forbailafter learning that a warrant of
arrest wasissuedagainsttheirclient, however,they were
only able to surrender their client to the NBI at 2AM of
12/14/00 because ofthe trafficcomingfrom Cavite. With
regardtothe lackofnoticeofhearingtothecomplainant,
they contend that complainant was not entitled to any
noticefor being aprivateprosecutor.RespondentSusa,in
his comment, argues that the inclusion ofthemotionfor
hearing was calendared upon a lawful order of the
presiding judge and in faithful performance of
respondents ministerial duty. The IBPCBD issued their
resolution suspending respondentscounsel from the
practice oflawfor6monthsanddismissingthecomplaint
againsttheClerkofCourtforlackofmerit.
NatashaV.HeysuwanPetitioner
Atty.JamesBenedictC.FloridoRespondent
hisisan
administrativecomplaintforthedisbarmentof
respondentAtty.JamesBenedictC.Florido
andhis
eventual
removalfromtheRollofAttorneys
forallegedly
violatinghisoathasalawyerby
manufacturing,flaunting
andusingaspuriousandbogusCourtofAppeals
Resolution/Order

NatashaV.HeysuwanFloridoaverredthatsheisthe
legitimatespouseofrespondentAtty.JamesBenedictC.
Florido,butthattheyareestrangedandlivingseparately
fromeachother.Theyhavetwochildrennamely,Kamille
NicoleH.Florido,5yrsold,andJamesBenedictH.Florido,
Jr.,3yrsoldbothofwhomareincomplainant'scustody

falsehood in filing a
motion forbailaday
before
accuseds
actualsurrender?

by alleging that accused had already surrendered to the

authorities and was in detention when in fact, it wasinthe
contrary. The allegation that accuseds detention was a
statement of ultimatefactdoesnotexoneratethem.Thefact
remains that the allegation that accused wasin NBIcustody
on 12/13/00 was false. Furthermore, reasonable notice of
hearing is required to be given to theprosecutoror fiscalin
order for the prosecutor or fiscal to be able to submit his
recommendation. Although a motion maybe heardonshort
notice,respondentscounselfailed to showany goodcauseto
justifytheirfailureto observethe3daynoticerule.As officers
ofthe Court,it isalawyers high vocationtocorrectlyinform
thecourtuponthelawandthefactsofthe caseand toaidit
in doing justice and arrivingata correctconclusion.Lawyers
are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to
misuse them to defeat the ends ofjustice.RespondentSusa
should not be made administratively liable considering that
hisactionswere authorized bythepresiding judge.However,
he is reminded that his administrative functions are vital to
theprompt andsoundadministrationofjustice ofjustice and
that he should not hesitate to informthejudgeifheshould
find any act orconducton thepartofthe lawyerswhich are
contrarytotheestablishedrulesofprocedure.

whetherornotthe
respondentcanbe
heldadministratively
liableforhisreliance
onandattemptto
enforceaspurious
Resolutionofthe
CourtofAppealsin
violationCannon10,
Rule10.1&10.2

YES
.Candorandfairnessaredemandedofeverylawyer.The
burdencastonthejudiciarywouldbeintolerableifitcould
nottakeatfacevaluewhatisassertedbycounsel.Thetime
thatwillhavetobedevotedjusttothetaskofverificationof
allegationssubmittedcouldeasilybeimagined.Evenwithdue
recognitionthenthatcounselisexpectedtodisplaythe
utmostzealinthedefenseofaclientscause,itmustneverbe
attheexpenseofthetruth.

(CANON10,Rule10.1&10.2)
Rule10.01Alawyershall
notdoanyfalsehood
;norconsent
tothedoingofanyincourt;norshallhemislead,orallowthe
Courttobemisledbyanyartifice.

Rule10.02Alawyers
hallnotknowinglymisquoteor
misrepresentthecontentsofapaper,thelanguageorthe
argumentofanopposingcounsel,orthetextofadecisionor

Complainantfiledacasefortheannulmentofher
marriagewithrespondentinRTCCEBUwhilethereis
anothercaserelatedtothecomplaintforannulmentof
marriagewhichispendingbeforetheCA.

RespondentwenttocomplainantsresidenceinTanjayCity,
NegrosOrientalanddemandedthatthecustodyoftheir2
minorchildrenbesurrenderedtohim.Heshowed
complainantaphotocopyofanallegedResolutionissued
bytheCourtofAppealswhichsupposedlygrantedhis
motionfortemporarychildcustody.Complainantcalledup
herlawyerbutthelatterinformedherthathehadnot
receivedanymotionfortemporarychildcustodyfiledby
respondent.

Complainantaskedrespondentfortheoriginalcopyofthe
allegedresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,butrespondent
failedtogiveittoher.Complainantthenexaminedthe
resolutioncloselyandnotedthatitboretwodates:
November12,2001andNovember29,2001.Sensing
somethingamiss,sherefusedtogivecustodyoftheir
childrentorespondent.

WhilecomplainantwaswithherchildrenintheABC
LearningCenterinTanjayCity,respondent,accompanied
byarmedmen(allegedlyNBI),arrivedanddemandedthat
shesurrendertohimthecustodyoftheirchildren.He
threatenedtoforcefullytakethemaway.Alarmed,Police
responsewassoughtandtheybroughtthetoPolice
Stationtopeacefullysettlematters.complainantagreedto
allowthechildrentosleepwithrespondentforonenight
onconditionthathewouldnottakethemawayfrom
TanjayCity.Thisagreementwasenteredintointhe
presenceofTanjayCityChiefofPoliceJuanitoCondesand
NBIInvestigatorRogerSususco,amongothers.

Earlymorningavanarrivedatthehotelwhererespondent
andthechildrenwerestayingtotakethemtoBacolod
City.Complainantrushedtothehotelandtookthe
childrentoanotherroom,wheretheystayeduntillaterin
themorning.Onthesameday,respondentfiledwiththe
RegionalTrialCourtofDumagueteCity

authority
,orknowinglyciteasalawaprovisionalready
renderedinoperativebyrepealoramendment,orassertasa
factthatwhichhasnotbeenproved.

Recordsshowthat
respondentusedoffensivelanguageinhis
pleadingsindescribingcomplainantandherrelatives
.A
lawyer'slanguageshouldbeforcefulbutdignified,emphatic
butrespectfulasbefittinganadvocateandinkeepingwiththe
dignityofthelegalprofession.Thelawyersargumentswhether
writtenororalshouldbegracioustobothcourtandopposing
counselandshouldbeofsuchwordsasmaybeproperly
addressedbyonegentlementoanother.Bycalling
complainant,
aslymanipulatoroftruthaswellasavindictive
congenitalprevaricator
,hardlymeasurestothesobrietyof
speechdemandedofalawyer.

Theyconstitutegrossmisconductandthesanctionsforsuch
malfeasanceisprescribedbySection27,Rule138oftheRules
ofCourtwhichstates:
SEC.27.
DisbarmentandsuspensionofattorneysbySupreme
Court,groundstherefore
.Amemberofthebarmaybe
disbarredorsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorneybythe
SupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpracticeorothergross
misconductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralconductorby
reasonofhisconvictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,
orforanyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtotake
beforetheadmissiontopractice,orforawillfuldisobedience
appearingasattorneyforapartywithoutauthoritytodoso.

Atty.JamesBenedictC.FloridoisSUSPENDEDfromthe
practiceoflawforaperiodoftwo(2)years

ortheissuanceofawritof
habeascorpus
assertinghis
righttocustodyofthechildrenonthebasisofthealleged
CourtofAppealsresolution.Inthemeantime,complainant
verifiedtheauthenticityoftheResolutionandobtaineda
certificationdatedJanuary18,2002fromtheCourtof
Appealsstatingthatnosuchresolutionordering
complainanttosurrendercustodyoftheirchildrento
respondenthadbeenissued.

Hence,complainantfiledthethiscomplaintrespondent
answeredthecomplaint,thematterwasreferredtothe
IBPCommissiononBarDisciplineforinvestigation,report
andrecommendation.TheIBPCBDrecommendedthat
respondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfora
periodofthreeyearswithawarningthatanotheroffense
ofthisnaturewillresultinhisdisbarment

Olivaresvs.Villalon,Jr

Lyks

YapParasvs.Paras

Jay

RosaYapParas,petitioner;
Atty.JustoParas,respondent

PetitionerRosaYapParasfiledaMotionforContempt
and/orDisbarmentagainstrespondentAtty.JustoParas.

InFebruary14,2005,theCourtissuedaResolution
(committedactsofdeceit,malpractice,gravemisconduct,
grosslyimmoralconductinyear1998)andsuspendedAtty.
Parasfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodof1year,witha
warning.

Duringthependencyoftherespondentsmotionfor
resolution,petitionerallegedthatAtty.Parasviolatedthe
suspensionorder.

Whetherornot
disbarmentshould
beimposedagainst
therespondent.

No
,theSupremeCourtfoundnosufficientbasistosupport
petitionersclaims[heviolatedthesuspensionorder].

However
,alllawyersare
expectedtorecognizetheauthority
oftheSupremeCourtandobeyitslawfulprocessesand
orders.

AresolutionoftheSupremeCourtisnottobeconstruedasa
mererequest,norshoulditbecompliedwithpartially,
inadequatelyorselectively.

CANON8:ALAWYERSHALLCONDUCTHIMSELFWITH
COURTESY,FAIRNESSANDCANDORTOWARDSHIS
PROFESSIONALCOLLEAGUES,
andshallavoidharassingtactics
againstopposingcounsel.(Agpalo,p107)

(CANON10:ALAWYEROWESCANDOR,FAIRNESSANDGOOD
FAITHTOTHECOURT.)

AlliedBanking
Corporationvs.Courtof
Appeals

Carlo

OnJuly18,2005,theCourtissuedaResolutiondenying
respondentsmotion.
Onthesamedate,theCourt
requiredAtty.Parastocommentonthepetitioners
motionforContemptand/orDisbarment,within10days
fromnotice,
whichhefailedtodo.

Atty.Parasadmittedthathehadbeenlessthanprudent,
andindeedfellshort,ofhisobligationtocomplywiththe
specificorderoftheSupremeCourt(tocommentonthe
motionforContemptand/orDisbarment)duetohis
deterioratinghealthcondition.

Sorianovs.CA

Renz

Habawelvs.CTA

Monica

The case was originally about a petition for

refund for the excess of realty taxes paid to a
City Government. The party involved was the
Surfield Development Corporation (SDC),
represented by Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F.
Medina, herein the petitioners. When the case
was assigned to the Court of Tax AppealsFirst
Division (CTA FD), the petition was denied for
lack of jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Habawel and Medina
sought reconsideration in behalf of SDC,
insisting that the CTA had jurisdiction pursuant
to Republic Act No. 9282 and arguing that the
CTA FD manifested its lack of understanding
orrespectforthedoctrineofstaredecisisinnot
applying the ruling in Ty v. Trampe, to the
effect that there was no need to file an appeal
before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals

Whether or not
the
language
employed by the
petitioners in
theirmotionand
and compliance
were
contumacious,
and must be
held guilty of
directcontempt.

TheCourtalsoremindedthepartiestoavoidfurther
squabblesandunnecessaryfilingofadministrativecases
againsteachother.
Fromtherecords,anumberofcases
revealedapervasiveatmosphereofanimositybetween
respondentandpetitionerscounsels.

Lawyersshouldtreat
eachotherwithcourtesy,fairness,candorandcivility.

Candor,fairnessandtruthfulnessshouldcharacterizethe
conductofalawyerwithotherlawyers.
(Agpalo,p107)

MotionforContemptand/orDisbarmentwas
DENIED
.Atty.
JustoParaswas
REPRIMANDED
forhisfailuretoobservethe
respectduetheCourtinnotpromptlycomplyingwiththis
Court'sresolution,with
WARNING
thatamoredrastic
punishmentwillbeimposeduponhimforarepetitionofthe
totheact.

YES.
The Court finds no sincerity and humility
when Habawel and Medina asked for apology. In
fact, the petitioners pointed the Courts alleged
ignorance and grave abuse of discretion. Their
chosen words are sostrong,whichbringsdisrepute
to the Courts honor and integrity. The CTA FD
furtherassailedthat:

The tone of an irate lawyer would almost always

reveal the sarcasm inthephrasedused.Thescurrilousattacks
made in the guiseof pointing out errors of judgment almost
always resultto thedestructionof thehigh esteem andregard
towardstheCourt.

The CTA First Division did not abuse its

discretion, least of all gravely, in finding that the
petitioners committed direct contempt of court.
Canon 11 of the Code of Responsibility mandates
all attorneys toobserveandmaintainrespectdueto
the courts and to judicial officers and to insist on
similar conduct by others. Rule 11.03 of the Code

pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act. No.

7160.

The CTA FD denied the motion for

reconsideration. The CTA FDexplainedthatthe
jurisdiction conferred by Section 7(a) (3) of
Republic Act no. 1125, as amended by R.A.
No.9282,referredtoappealsfromthedecisions,
orders, or resolutions of the RTCs inlocaltaxes
and did not include the real property tax, an ad
valorem tax, the refund of excess payment of
which Surfield was claiming. Hence, the
jurisdiction concerning real property tax cases
fell under a different section of R.A. No. 9282
and under a separate book of R.A. No. 7160.
Therefore, Surfield motion for reconsideration
wasagaindenied.

In addition, the CTA FD, taking notice of the

language the petitioners employedinthemotion
for reconsideration, required them to explain
within five (5) days from receipt why they
should not be liable for indirect contempt or be
made subject to disciplinary action. Their
petitionersstatementdulyconsistsof:
it is gross ignorance of the law for the HonorableCourt
to have held that it has no jurisdiction over their instant
petition the grossness of this Honorable Courts
ignorance of the law is matched only by the unequivocal
expression of this HonorableCourtsjurisdictionoverthe
instant case and this Court lacked the understanding and
respect for the doctrine of stare decisis as derogatory,
offensiveanddisrespectful.

The petition submitted a compliance in which

they must appeared to apologize, but instead,
justified their language as necessary to bluntly
call the Honorable Courts attention to the

specifically enjoins all attorneys

to shall abstain
from scandalous, offensive or menacing language
orbehaviorbeforetheCourts.

An imputation in a pleading of gross ignorance

against a court or its judge, especially in the
absence of any evidence, is a serious allegation,
and constitutes direct contempt of court. It is
settled that derogatory, offensive or malicious
statements contained in pleadings or written
submissionspresentedtothesamecourtorjudgein
which proceedings arepending aretreatedasdirect
contempt because they are equivalent to a
misbehavior committed in the presence of or so
near a court or judge as to interrupt the
administrationofjustice.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition for

certiorari, however, modify the penalty imposedto
the petitioners by deleting the penalty of
imprisonment and sentencing them only to pay the
fineofP2,000.00each.

grievousness of the error by calling a spade by

spade.

Therefore, the CTA First Division adjudged

both of the petitioners guilty of direct contempt
of court for failing to uphold their duty of
preserving the integrity and respect due to
sentencing each other to suffer imprisonment of
ten days and to pay P2,000.00 as fine. The
petitioners have come to the Supreme Court for
reliefthroughcertiorari.
Leonidasvs.Supnet

Quini

OnApril13,1988UnionBankwiththepetitioneras
counselfiledacomplaintagainstthespousesEddieand
ElizaTamondongtocollectthelattersunpaidloansecured
fromthebanktobuyamotorvehicle

Forlackofinterest,RTCPasaycitydismissedthecomplaint
withoutprejudice.THebankfiledanothercomplaint
againstthespousestocollecttheunpaidloanwitha
prayerforawritofreplevin.THiscasewaspresidedbythe
respondentjudge.

TheTamondongspousesfiledanurgentmotionand
prayedfortheffreliefs:(1)todismissthecivilcase,(2)to
setasidethewritofreplevin,(3)toordertheimmediate
returnoftherepleviedvehicleand(4)tocitethebankand
thecounselofitforcontemptofcourtforforumshopping
andformisleadingthecourt.

ThenthePASAYMTCactedontheurgentmotionofthe
spousesandcitedthecounselandthebankincontempt.

Hence,thepetitionerAtty.TomasLeonidasfiledan
administrativecaseagainsttherespondentJudgeforgross
ignoranceofthelaw,graveabuseofauthority,misconduct
andconductprejudicialtotheproperadministrationof
justice,forcitinghimincontempt.Healsocontendedthat
heshouldnotbeheldresponsibleforsubmittingafalse
certificateagainstforumshoppingforthesimplereason
thathedidnotsignthecertification.

w/nthejudgecanbe
heldliableforgross
ignoranceofthelaw,
graveabuseof
authority,
misconductand
conductprejudicial
totheproper
administrationof
justice,forcitingthe
petitionerin
contempt.

YES.Apartycannotbeheldinindirectcontemptfor
disobeyingthecourtorderwhichisnotaddressedtohim.
Petitionershouldthereforenotbepunishedfordisregarding
anorderthathewasnevermeanttocomplywithinthefirst
place.Onthispoint,therespondentjudgeclearlycommitteda
mistake.Heshouldhavebeenmindfulthatheneverordered
petitionertoreturnedtherepleviedvehicle.Therewasalsono
evidencethatpetitionerwaseverinpossessionofthereplied
vehicle.

Courtsarenotpowerlesstocompelobediencetotheirorders,
writsandprocesses.Thepowertopunishpersonsfor
contemptisinherentinallcourtsandisessentialtothe
preservationoforderinalljudicialproceedingsandtothe
reinforcementoftheirlawfulordersanddecisions.Without
thepowertopunishforcontempt,courtswouldbecome
impotenttomaintaintheorderlyadministrationofjusticeand
tocompelobservancetotheirlawfulmandates.However,
thereisalimitationtothispower,asitmustbeused
sparingly.Itshouldbeexercisedonthepreservative,not
vindictiveprinciple,andonthecorrectiveandnotretaliatory
ideaofpunishment.

THEREFORE,theCourtenbancfoundrespondentJudgeguilty
ofseriousmisconduct.

Respondentjudgeinsistthathedulyobservedthe
proceduralrequirementfordeclaringthepetitionerin
indirectcontempt.
OCAagreeswiththerulingoftheRTCdeclaringthe
petitionerincontempt.
Re:LetteroftheUPLaw
Facultyentitled
RestoringIntegrity:A
statementbythe
FacultyoftheUP
CollegeofLawonthe
allegationsofplagiarism
andmisrepresentation
intheSC

KP

The case of Vinuya, et.al. v. Executive Secretary written by

Assoc. Justice Mariano del Castillo, was decided unfavorably
against the petitioners. In the Motion for Reconsideration,
Attys. Harry Roque and Romel Bagares (counsel of petitioner
Malaya Lolas), posited for the first time their charge of
plagiarism.

Atty. Roque, in a column entitled Plagiarized and Twisted,

claimed that Prof.EvanCriddle,oneofthe authorsnotproperly
acknowledged in theVinuyadecision,hadbeenplagiarized.The
column appearedinthe ManilaStandardToday. Dr. MarkEllis
also wrote tothe Court against theunauthorizeduseofhislaw
reviewarticle.

The Court formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical

Standards for the charges of plagiarism to Assoc Justice del
Castillo.

The statement entitled RestoringIntegrity: A Statementbythe

Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Lawon
the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the
SupremeCourt,waspostedinNewsbreakwebsiteandonAtty.
Roques blog. It was also reported on GMA News TV and Sun
Star, and likewise posted at the UPCoLbulletinboard.2days
after the release of the statement, Dean Leonen submitteda
letterand acopy of the Statement totheCourt. It includedthe
names of 37 UP professors withthe notation (SGD)appearing
besideeachname,butdoesnotcontaintheactualsignatures.

RestoringIntegritycontainsthesestatements:
a)
An extraordinary act of injustice has beencommitted
against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a
timeofwar.
b)
Had theirhopescrushedbya singularlyreprehensibleact
of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of
theland
c)
Assoc.JusticeofSChascommittedplagiarism..aserious
threattotheintegrityandcredibilityofthePhil.JudicialSystem
d)
Ponente merely copied select portions of other legal
writers works and interspersed them into the decision as if
theywerehisown,originalwork
e)
HighCourtactuallymisrepresentstheconclusionoftheir
(theplagiarizedauthors)workbytransformingitinto an actof
intellectualfraudtomisleadanddeceive

a)

Whetherornot
thesubmissionofthe
respondents
satisfactorilyexplain
whytheyshouldnot
bedisciplinedas
membersoftheBar
underCanons1,11,
and13andRules
1.02and11.05ofthe
CPR.

b)

Whetherornot
theseparate
complianceofDean
Leonensatisfactorily
explainwhyhe
shouldnotbe
disciplinedasa
memberoftheBar
underCanon10and
Rules10.01,10.02
and10.03.

a)

TheirsubmissionswerefoundunsatisfactorybytheSC.

Withrespecttogoodfaith,respondentsallegationspresentedtwo
mainideas:(a)thevalidityoftheirpositionregardingtheplagiarism
chargeagainstJusticeDelCastillo,and(b)theirpuremotivetospur
thisCourttotakethecorrectactiononsaidissue.

ItisnottheexpressionofrespondentsstaunchbeliefthatJustice
DelCastillohascommittedamisconductthatthemajorityofthis
CourthasfoundsounbecomingintheShowCauseResolution.No
matterhowfirmalawyersconvictionintherighteousnessofhis
causethereissimplynoexcusefordenigratingthecourtsand
engaginginpublicbehaviorthattendstoputthecourtsandthe
legalprofessionintodisrepute.Thisdoctrine,shouldbeappliedin
thiscasewithmorereason,astherespondents,notpartiestothe
Vinuyacase,denouncedtheCourtandurgedittochangeits
decisiontherein,inapublicstatementusingcontumacious
language,whichwithtemeritytheysubsequently
submittedtothe
Courtfor"properdisposition
.
ThathumiliatingtheCourtintoreconsideringtheVinuyaDecisionin
favoroftheMalayaLolaswasoneoftheobjectivesofthe
Statementcouldbeseeninthefollowingparagraphsfromthe
same:
Andinlightofthesignificanceofthisdecisiontothequestfor
justicenotonlyofFilipinowomen,butofwomenelsewhereinthe
worldwhohavesufferedthehorrorsofsexualabuseand
exploitationintimesofwar,
theCourtcannotcoldlydenyreliefand
justicetothepetitionersonthebasisofpilferedand
misinterpretedtexts.
Onewonderswhatsortofeffectrespondentswerehopingforin
brandingthisCourtas,amongothers,callous,dishonestandlacking
inconcernforthebasicvaluesofdecencyandrespect.TheCourt
failstoseehowitcanennobletheprofessionifweallow
respondentstosendasignaltotheirstudentsthattheonlywayto
effectivelypleadtheircasesandpersuadeotherstotheirpointof
viewistobeoffensive.
Moreover,theCourtfindsthattherewasindeedalackof
observanceoffidelityandduerespecttotheCourt,particularly
whenrespondentsknewfullywellthatthematterofplagiarismin
theVinuyadecisionandthemeritsoftheVinuyadecisionitself,at
thetimeoftheStatementsissuance,werestillbothpendingfinal
dispositionoftheCourt.Thesefactshavebeenwidelypublicized.
Onthispoint,respondentsallegethatatthetimetheStatement
wasfirstdraftedonJuly27,2010,theydidnotknowofthe
constitutionoftheEthicsCommitteeandtheyhadissuedthe

f)
Itscallousdisposition,coupledwith falsesympathyand
nonchalance, belies a more alarming lackofconcern for even
themostbasicvaluesofdecencyandrespect
g)Clearandobviousplagiarism
h)
Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the
petitionersonthebasisofpilferedandmisinterpretedtexts
i)EndangerstheintegrityandcredibilityoftheentireSC
Moreover, the UP professors arecallingforthe resignationof
JusticedelCastillo.

TheCase
This is an administrative case of 37 respondent UP law
professors and members of the bar, in response tothe show
cause resolution directing them to show cause why they
shouldntbe disciplinesas members oftheBarforviolatingthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
a)
All of the professors (except Atty.Lynchwho is not a
member of the Phil. Bar but of the State of Minnesota) were
directed to show cause for violation of Canons1,11, 13, and
Rules1.02,and11.05oftheCPR.
b)
DeanonMarivic Leonen was directedtoshowcausefor
violation of Canon 10,Rules10.01,10.02, and10.03 of the CPR
for submitting through his letter, during pendency of the
motion for reconsideration andinvestigation beforethe Ethics
Committee, a dummy which is not a true and faithful
reproductionoftheUPLawFacultyStatement.
SeparatecomplianceofDeanLeonen
There were 3draftsofRestoring Integrity Statement. Thefirst
twoarematerial.
a)
RestoringIntegrity I : contained actualsignatures of 37
respondents
b)
Restoring Integrity II : no actual signature of 37
respondnets, but reflects the signatories with the notation
(SGD).ThisisthecopysenttotheCourt
Restoring IntegrityIwasdrafted,and circulated among faculty
members tosign.Dean Leonen was unaware thataMotionfor
Reconsideration onthe Vinuya casehadbeenfiledandthatthe
courtis intheprocessofconveningtheEthicsCommittee.After
the circulation of Restoring Integrity I, they reproduced it to
Restoring Integrity II with the names ofthose who signed the
firstdraftwouldappear,togetherwiththe(SGD)note.

StatementunderthebeliefthatthisCourtintendedtotakeno
actionontheethicschargeagainstJusticeDelCastillo.Still,there
wasasignificantlapseoftimefromthedraftingandprintingofthe
StatementonJuly27,2010anditspublicationandsubmissionto
thisCourtinearlyAugustwhentheEthicsCommitteehadalready
beenconvened.Ifitistruethattherespondentsoutragewas
fueledbytheirperceptionofindifferenceonthepartoftheCourt
then,whenitbecameknownthattheCourtdidintendtotake
action,therewasnothingtopreventrespondentsfrom
recalibratingtheStatementtotakethissuperveningeventinto
accountintheinterestoffairness.
Thus,the35respondentsnamedshould,notwithstandingtheir
claimofgoodfaith,beremindedoftheirlawyerlyduty,under
Canons1,11and13,togiveduerespecttothecourtsandto
refrainfromintemperateandoffensivelanguagetendingto
influencetheCourtonpendingmattersortodenigratethecourts
andtheadministrationofjustice.
b)ThesubmissionofDeanLeonenwasfoundunsatisfactoryby
theSC
DeanonLeonenessentiallydeniesthat
RestoringIntegrityII
was
notatrueandfaithfulreproductionoftheactualsignedcopy,
RestoringIntegrityI
,becauselookingatthetextorthebody,there
werenodifferencesbetweenthetwo.Courtcannotsubscribeto
DeanLeonensview.
ThefactisthatDeanLeonendidnotfromthebeginningsubmitthe
signedcopy,RestoringIntegrityI,tothisCourtand,instead,
submittedRestoringIntegrityIIwithitsretypedor"reformatted"
signaturepages.Itwouldturnout,accordingtoDeanLeonens
account,thattherewereerrorsintheretypingofthesignature
pagesduetolapsesofhisunnamedstaff.First,anunnamed
administrativeofficerinthedeansofficegavethedeaninaccurate
informationthatledhimtoallowtheinclusionofJusticeMendoza
asamongthesignatoriesofRestoringIntegrityII.Second,an
unnamedstaffalsofailedtotypethenameofAtty.Armovitwhen
encodingthesignaturepagesofRestoringIntegrityIIwheninfact
hehadsignedRestoringIntegrityI.
DeanLeonenadmitsinafootnotethatotherprofessorshad
likewiseonlyauthorizedhimtoindicatethemassignatoriesand
hadnotinfactsignedtheStatement.Thus,ataroundthetime
RestoringIntegrityIIwasprinted,postedandsubmittedtothis
Court,atleastonepurportedsignatorytheretohadnotactually
signedthesame.ContrarytoDeanLeonensproposition,thatis
preciselytantamounttomakingitappeartothisCourtthata
personorpersonsparticipatedinanactwhensuchpersonor
personsdidnot.
TheCourtlikewisefindsDeanLeonensComplianceunsatisfactory.
However,theCourtiswillingtoascribetheseisolatedlapsesin
judgmentofDeanLeonentohismisplacedzealinpursuitofhis
objectives.IndueconsiderationofDeanLeonensprofessedgood
intentions,theCourtdeemsitsufficienttoadmonishDeanLeonen

JusticeMendozasname was amongthe signatories inRestoring

integrityII,wheninfacthedidnotsignRestoringIntegrityI.

Whattranspired
:
When the deans staff talked toJustice Mendozaonthephone,
he [Justice Mendoza] indeed initially agreed to sign the
Restoring IntegrityStatementas hefundamentally agreedwith
its contents. However, JusticeMendozadidnotexactlysay that
he authorized the dean to sign the Restoring Integrity
Statement.Rather,heinquiredifhecould authorizethedean to
sign it for himas hewasabout toleaveforthe United States.
The deans staffinformedhimthattheywould,at anyrate,still
trytobringtheRestoringIntegrityStatementtohim.
Due to some administrative difficulties, Justice Mendoza was
unable tosign the RestoringIntegrity Statement beforeheleft
fortheU.S.thefollowingweek.
The staff was able to bring Restoring Integrity III to Justice
Mendoza when he went to the College to teach on 24
September2010, aday afterhisarrival fromthe U.S.Thistime,
Justice Mendoza declined to sign because it had already
becometoocontroversial.Hewantedtoshowduedeferenceto
the Court, being a former Assoc. Justice and not wishing to
undulyaggravatethesituation
.

Limvs.Montano

Abe

Adonis<3#ULTIMATEABE(hhahahahabaliw)

Atty. Carmelito A. Montano stands charged with gross

misconduct relative to his filing of Civil Case No. C19928
entitled
Spouses Tomas See Tuazon and Natividad See Deecho
v.JohnSiyLimandtheRegisterofDeedsofCaloocanCity
.

Complainant John Siy Lim was the defendant in another civil

case (Civil Case No. 14542) for the reformation of contract,
quieting of title, with damages, then pending before the
RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of CaloocanCity,Branch13.Aftertrial
in that case, the RTC ruled in favor of Lim. On motion for
reconsideration, however, the trial court reversed itself. On
appeal,the Court of AppealsreversedthesecondRTCdecision
andreinstateditsfirstdecisioninfavorofLim.

Theaggrievedpartyelevated themattertotheSupremeCourt,
which affirmed the decision of the Court ofAppeals. Entry of
judgmentwasthenmade.

On January 7, 2002, he filed, in behalf of his client (Spouses

TomasSeeTuazon), amotion tocomplywiththedecision of the
Court in Civil Case No. 14542 thereby stating that they are

forfailingtoobservefullcandorandhonestyinhisdealingswith
theCourtasrequiredunderCanon10.

Whetherornotthe
respondentis
administratively
liableforviolating
Canon12.

Yes, theCourtagreedthattherespondent isadministratively liable.

The respondent isguiltyofforumshopping. Theessence of forum
shoppingis thefilingofmultiplesuitsinvolvingthesamepartiesfor
the same cause ofaction,either simultaneouslyorsuccessively,for
the purpose of obtaining a favorablejudgment.Itexistswhen,asa
resultofanadverseopinioninoneforum,apartyseeksafavorable
opinion in another, or when heinstitutes two ormoreactionsor
proceedings groundedon thesamecause toincreasethechances
ofobtainingafavorabledecision.

By his own admission, he was aware that CivilCase No.C14542

wasalreadyfinalandexecutorywhenhefiledthesecondcase (Civil
Case No. C19928). His allegation that he was not the original
counsel of his clientsand that when he filedthe subsequent case
for nullity of TCT, his motive was toprotecttherights of hisclients
whom he believed were not properly addressed in theprior case
for reformation and quietingoftitle, deservesscantconsideration.
As a responsiblemember of the bar,heshouldhaveexplainedthe
effect of such final and executory decision on his clients rights,
insteadofencouragingthemtofileanothercaseinvolvingthesame
propertyandassertingthesamerights.

aware that the decision in said case has become final and
executory.

On the same date, respondent, in behalf of his clients (the

spousesTomas See Tuazon)filed theComplaint fornullityof
TCT and other documents, reconveyance, maintenance of
physical possession before the RTC of Caloocan City,
eventually raffled to Branch 121 thereof (Civil Case No.
C19928).

This prompted thecomplainanttofilethe instantcomplaintfor

disbarment against respondent alleging that the filing of Civil
Case No. C19928 was out of malice, pointing out that it
involvesthesameparties, thesamecauses of action andrelief
prayed for as that of Civil Case No. C14542. Thus, the
complainant prayed that the respondent be disbarred and/or
suspendedfrom thepracticeoflawforhisgross misconduct,on
thefollowingallegation:

6. Evidently, I have been

subjected to harassment by the antics of
the respondent in filing a recycled case
docketed as Civil Case No. C19928 on
January 07, 2002. Respondent is guilty in
abetting the conduct of his clients, Sps.
Tuazon. Hehas clearly violatedhislawyers
oath not to promote or sue groundless,
false or unlawful suits among others.
Instead of counseling his clients to abide
and obey the decision of our Supreme
Court, the finalarbiterofall controversies
and disputes, heis showingdisrespecttoa
finalandexecutorydecisionofourcourt.

Respondent denied the allegations against him. While he

admittedthathe filed Civil CaseNo. C19928ascounselforthe
plaintifftherein, heclaimedthatitwasnotfiledwith malicious
intent.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline assigned the case to

Commissioner Salvador L. Pea. Finding that there were no
factual issues in the case, Commissioner Pea terminated the
mandatoryconference andordered the partiesto submittheir
respective verified PositionPapers,and, thereafter,considered
thecasesubmittedforresolution.

The case was reassigned to Commissioner Doroteo B. Aguila

who submitted hisReport and Recommendation datedMay 9,
2005, finding the respondent guilty of misconduct. It was
recommended that respondent be meted a two months
suspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.


TheBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPCommissiononBarDiscipline
issuedResolutionNo.XVII2005108,adopting saidReportand
Recommendation with the modification that respondent be
suspendedfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months.

Edrialvs.QuilatQuilat

AteHeart

Parties who prayed for and were granted several

postponements and caused repeateddelayscannot askfor
the reopening of the trial for the purpose of presenting
additional evidence. After squandering several
opportunities given them to ventilate their claims, they
can no longer complain of alleged violation of their right
todueprocess.

Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao all

surnamed QuilatQuilat filedanactionforrecoveryof a
parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr.,
Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, MaryJeanall surnamed
Edrial and Susan EdrialValenzuela. Counsel for
petitioners was first represented by Atty Lituanas but
withdraw his professional services and was replaced by
Atty. Sedillo who later withdraw but then reentered his
appearance as counsel in the case. Atty. Eleccion of
Citizen Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) for the private
respondents.
Counsel for petitioners alleges that the addresses of his
clients on file in his law firm were incorrect; hence, the
noticesandotherformsofcommunicationhe had sentto
them were notreceived.Heallegedlydiscoveredthis fact
only afterhe hadfiled his withdrawalastheir counsel.He
also argues that thedenialoftheMotiontoReopen Trial
was "plainly capricious and oppressive" because private
respondents were equally guilty of delay and
procrastination. Finally, he maintains that allowing
petitioners to present theirremainingevidence wouldbe
"in the interest of substantial due process and humane
justice."
Respondents counsel disagree, reasoning that the trial
court thrice reconsideredits Order tosubmitthecasefor
decision; that is, petitioners were given several
opportunities to present their evidence, but they
squanderedthem.Petitioners,theyfurtherpointout,were
intentionally seeking to delay the resolution of the case

Whetherofnot
counselof
petitionerviolate
Canon12Rule
12.03andRule
12.04.

YES.

The Court frowns on lawyers' practice of

repeatedly seeking extensions of time to file
pleadings and thereafter simply letting the period
lapse without submitting any pleading or even any
explanation or manifestation of their failure. The
same principle applies more forcefully to motions
for continuance. Postponement is not a matter of
right, but of sound judicial discretion. Actions
thereon will not be disturbed byappellatecourtsin
the absence of a clear or manifest abuse of
discretion, resulting in a denial of substantial
justice.
The Code of Professional Responsibility requires
that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, shall not let
the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for their failure to do so
(Rule 12.03). Moreover, they should avoid any
action that would unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes
(Rule12.04).
Forthebenefitofthebenchandbar,worth
repeatingistheCA'sremindertopetitioners'
counselofhisdutytohisclientandtothecourt:
"Beinganofficerofthecourtalawyerispartof
themachineryintheadministrationofjustice.Like
thecourtitself,heisaninstrumenttoadvanceits
endsthespeedy,efficient,impartial,correctand
inexpensiveadjudicationofcasesandtheprompt
satisfactionoffinaljudgments.Alawyershould
notonlyhelpattaintheseobjectivesbutshould
likewiseavoidanyunethicalorimproperpractices

Aguilarvs.Manila
BankingCorp

Mikko

Peoplevs.Nuguid

Patrick

thatimpede,obstructorpreventtheirrealization,
chargedasheiswiththeprimarytaskofassisting
inthespeedyandefficientadministrationof
justice.

because they were in physical possession of the land in

dispute.
Counsel's excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The CA ruled that petitioners were given "more than
enoughtime" to complete their presentation ofevidence.
Respondentsrestedtheir caseasearlyas September1992.
Petitioners' lawyer, at his own request, was allowed to
start presentingevidenceonlyonApril 12,1993.Fromthat
day until April 26, 1996 or for a period of three years,
counsel presented onlytwo witnesses. Thetrialjudgewas
in fact liberal in granting petitioners' Motions for
Postponement. But enough was enough; when they
attempted to delay the trial some more, the trial judge
finallyandcorrectlyrefusedtogoalong.
Respondents also asked for continuances,butpetitioners
were ultimately to blame for the inexcusable delay. The
case was submitted for decision three times on
December 11, 1990, October 30, 1992, and February 27,
1995 but petitionersand/or their counseldidnotappear
incourteachtime.Afterhavingfailed totakeadvantageof
opportunities to ventilate theirclaimsbelow, partiesmay
nolongerbeaccorded thesamechances,intheabsenceof
graveabuseof discretionon thepartofthetrialcourt,as
inthiscase.