You are on page 1of 2

51.

Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 159486-88

Facts:
Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the respondent justices
have violated Rule5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the EDSA 2 Rally
and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution.
Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that would assail
the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo.
Prompted by the alleged bias and partial attitude of
t h e Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for their
disqualification.
Issue:
WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes.
Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness
or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome for, if well-founded, such
reaction can enlighten the court andcontribute to the correction of an error if committed.
However, Attorney Paguiahas not limited his discussions to the merits of his clients case
within the judicial forum. Indeed, he hasrepeated his assault on the Court in both
broadcast and print media.
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility, but it will not countenance any
wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial system, let alone,
by those who have been privileged by it topractice law in the Philippines. C a n o n 1 1 o f t h e
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the law yer should
o b s e r v e a n d maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed,
should insist on similar conduct byothers. In liberally imputing sinister and devious
motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, andauthority of the members of the
Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct andpervert the
dispensation of justice. The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of
disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer
and as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
73.

Fernandez vs Cabrera II

A.C. 5623
Facts
Complainant Luthgarda F. Fernandez sought the disbarment of respondent, Atty.
Fidel M. Cabrera II, for malpractice, deceit, and gross misconduct. Complainant alleges
that she engaged the services of respondent sometime in July, 2001 to handle the cases of
her associates in Baguio City and entrusted to him the records of the said cases. After
paying respondents acceptance fee of P20,000 and P2,500 appearance fee, respondent
disappeared with the records of the cases. Respondent used to hold office at PO5 Prince
Jun Condo, 42 Timog Avenue, Quezon City, but could no longer be located there. Nor did
he leave a forwarding address.

Issue
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling
Yes, the acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. The canons of professional
responsibility require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake
the task with zeal, care, and utmost devotion. An attorney is bound to protect his clients
interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. It is the duty of a lawyer to
serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to
protect within the bounds of law the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render
him liable for disciplinary action.
l

You might also like