Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
Dennis Venturina (Venturina), Francis Carlo Taparan (Taparan) and Raymundo Narag (Narag)
were taken as suspects in the killing of a UP student. They were taken into the custody of Col. Eduardo
Bentain, head of the UP Security Force. Atty. Orlando Dizon, then Chief of the Special Operations
Group, requested that Taparan and Narag be taken into his custody. Atty. Marichu Lambino (Lambino),
Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, opposed Atty. Dizon's move, he not being armed with a warrant for their
arrest. After what appeared to be a heated discussion between Atty. Dizon and the UP officials, the
students were allowed to go back to their dormitories. Atty. Villamor committed to accompany them to
the NBI the following morning.
Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for violation of Canon 1. Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibilty. He also earlier
filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Ombudsman for violation of P.D. 1829
which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses.
Atty Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Upon Atty. Lambinos motion, the administrative cases were consolidated.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Atty. Lambino or Atty. Dizon acted within their official duties
HELD:
Faculty of Civil Law
Digest Pool 2010
RE: REQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE ANDRES R. NARVASA (RET.) FOR RECOMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
559 SCRA 296 (2008), EN BANC (Carpio Morales, J.)
Payments of increments of judges and justices should include only those that have accrued effective January 1999
and subject further to availability of funds.
The Retired Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa (Chief Justice Narvasa) asked the Court to approve
his grant to monthly pension. The Supreme Court made a Resolution granting Chief Justice Narvasas
request and directing the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) to determine the equivalent
payment of 142 days leave that Chief Justice Narvasa needs to reimburse to pave the way for the
payment of his monthly pension.
Chief Justice Narvasa provided in his letter his own computation for the 142 days leave, which
would amount to P 386,963. Thus, Chief Justice Narvasa asked the Court to re-compute his Creditable
Government Service and also to ascertain the amount he should be reimbursed with.
Faculty of Civil Law
Digest Pool 2010
The practice of law does requires only ordinary diligence or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater
Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous labor case in which the Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel
of their employer Microplast, Inc. A judgment in favor of them was rendered by the Labor Arbiter and a
writ of execution was issued against Microplast, Inc.
In the meantime, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case insofar as the seven complainants are
concerned on the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn to by
them.
Four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having
signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerations
therefor. They subsequently filed an administrative complaint alleging that respondent, acting in
collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, frustrated the implementation of the Writ of
Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. A Complaint seeking the
disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility was also filed.
During the administrative hearings before the IBP Commissioner, it was apparent that Atty.
Suing was coaching his client to prevent himself from being incriminated. It was also revealed that the
Release Waiver and Quitclaims allegedly signed were not the same documents originally presented to the
employees to be signed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Suing is an act arguably violative of the Lawyers
Code of Ethics
HELD:
Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite
of negligence. A lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of practice expected of
men of good intentions. He thus owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the
defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill, and ability to ensure
Faculty of Civil Law
Digest Pool 2010
ISSUE:
Whether or not Pascasio committed Grave Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty, and Malfeasance in
the performance of public functions as branch sheriff
HELD:
Pascasios failure to fully implement the writ of possession is inexcusable and constitutes
dereliction of duty. His claim that he was prevented from fully implementing the writ due to lack of
manpower resources is untenable. He is guilty of dereliction of duty as a sheriff for failing to execute
the writ within 30 days from receipt thereof.
Pursuant to Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Pacasio is required to make a
return and submit it to the court immediately upon satisfaction in part or in full of the judgment; and if
the judgment could not be satisfied in full, to make a report to the court within thirty (30) days after his
receipt of the writ and to state why full satisfaction could not be made. The sheriff shall continue to
make a report every thirty (30) days on the proceedings being taken thereon until the judgment is fully
satisfied. The requirement aims to update the court as to the status of the execution and to give it an idea
as to why the judgment was not satisfied. It also provides the court with insights as to how efficient
court processes are after judgment has been promulgated. The over-all purpose of the requirement is to
ensure the speedy execution of decisions.