#47 MALIGAYA VS DORONILLA

FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a hearing, he said “…we had
an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him (Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the cases. Do
with that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension.” Atty. Doronilla was then
charge of misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of justice.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of canon 10 of the code of
professional responsibility.

RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory tenets of ethical
conduct. Not only violated the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an in
court,” but also his acts 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. He was suspended from practice of law for
two months.

MONTEREY VS ARAYATA

FACTS: Atty. Arayata drew up in his favor deed of sale of a land, stating therein that the person who
executed the document and sold the land to him was his father who is already dead. He appears to
Notary public Montoya to legalize said document. However, in the course of investigation, he alleged
that it was his uncle who signed the deed of transfer and ratified it before Montoya.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Arayata’s acts constitute malpractice and unprofessional conduct meriting for him a
disciplinary action.

RULING: The acts committed by Atty. Arayata relative to the deed of sale and his statements to notary
Montoya with regards to said document, constitute malpractice and unprofessional conduct, meriting for
him a disciplinary action mitigated by the circumstance the he was the heir and complainant has no
direct interest. He was suspended for one month.

BEREGUER VS CARRANZA

FACTS: Pedro Carranza is a lawyer handling a cadastral case. In the presentation evidence, an affidavit of
adjudication and transfer was introduced to prove the property in question to his client. However, the
said affidavit has falsehood, it provides that it was executed by his client’s mother, making his client as
the only heir, when in fact; there are four daughters and their father. He was then charge of deceiving
the court. Atty. Carranza contends that he had nothing to do with the affidavit since it was subscribe
from Pasay City.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Carranza is liable for discretionary action for not warranting a greater diligence to read
the entirety of the affidavit to clear up inconsistencies and doubts.

RULING: Even if there be no intent to deceive, Atty. Carranza betrays inatention or carelessness should
not be allowed. A lawyer’s oath is not impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken
lightly. Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. Every member of the bar must be on his guard the
way he conducts his case or the evidence he presents could conceivably reprimanded and wained.

GARCIA VS FRANCISCO

FACTS: Garcia with five others leased a parcel of land to Lee for a period of 25 years. Lee refused to
vacate after expiration of lease. On the other hand, Lee’s counsel, Atty. Francisco, commenced various
suits to thwarts Garcia’s right to regain her property. Thus, violating proscription shopping. The latter
contends that such remedies are authorized by law.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Francisco violated Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the
administration justice. Atty. Francisco violated his oath no to delay any man for money or malice, he has
besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed
in him by law as an officer of the court. He was suspended for one year.

ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: Atty. Paguia, counsel of Estrada, asserts inhibition of the members of Supreme Court from
hearing their petition under Rule 5.10 of the code of judicial conduct prohibiting justices or judges from
participating in any partisan political activity, the justices violated by attending EDDA 2. Atty. Paguia has
not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case within the judicial forum, but has extend it to
both broadcast and print media. He did it again despite such warning from the court.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Paguia violated Canon 11 of the code of professional responsibility when he has
exhibited conduct of unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

RULING: The SC does not claim infallibility, it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the
court but it will not countenance any wrong doing nor allow erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial
system, let alone, by those who have privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines. Canon 11
mandates “…lawyer should observe and maintain resect due to the courts and judicial officers…”
However, Atty. Paguia has continued to make public statements of that seek to impede, obstruct and
dispensation of justice. He was indefinitely suspended.

LETTER OF UP LAW FACULTY

FACTS: The law faculty of UP alleged Justice Del Rosarion, the ponencia of Vinuyavs Executive Secretary,
for plagiarism and misrepresentation. The plagiarism centered on Justice Del Rosario’s discussion of the
principles of jus cogens and ergaomnes. On the other hand, the court contends that they have insulted
the court with their imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on
the basis of “polluted sources.”

ISSUE: WON the criticism made by the UP law faculty are acceptable.
RULLING: The right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there
is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of criticism revealed at the
judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attacks. Therefore, the court are asking the
lawyers to SHOW CAUSE why should not be disciplined.

POBRE VS SEN. SANTIAGO

FACTS: Sen Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding anomalies for nomination of soon
to be vacated position of Chief Justice. To reiterate, she was quoted that she wanted “ to spit on the face
of Chief Justice AremioPanganiban and his cohorts in the SC,” and calling the court a “Sc of idiots”. Pobre
believe that those statements reflected a total disrespect. The latter asking Atty./Sen Santiago’s
disbarment.

ISSUE: WON the criticism made by Atty./Sen Santiago cause her a disciplinary action or disbarment.

RULING: The court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on her for what
otherwise would have constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the court and its
members. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deer the court form doing so, even
without any sign of remorse from her. Basic constitutional consideration dictates this kind of disposition.
The letter complaint is dismissed.

JARDIN VS ATTY. VILLAR JR.

FACTS: Atty. Villar Jr. was the lawyer of Jardin in a Civil Case. However, the said case was dismissed for the
lawyer’s failure to formally offer documentary exhibits despites extensions given by the court. It
prejudices his client. This led to this case for disbarment.

ISSUE: WON Canon 12 was violated of Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING: Atty. Villar Jr. has fallen short of the competence and diligence required for every member of
the Bar. Canon 12 – a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of Justice.

EGMPC VS CA

FACTS: A case started on 1981 when spouses Seelin filed a complaint against Central Dyeing.
RTC and CA decided in favor of the spouses. The lawyer, however, filed different petitions
despite said decisions. The case runs for 17 years because of said petitions.

ISSUE: WON the lawyer violated Canon 12 - a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

RULING: We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal
in the defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are officers of the court,
bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They
should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes."As officers of the
court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not
discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary,
especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the
law should advise them when a case such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely
clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their
clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the
courts."

VILLASIS VS CA

FACTS: An action for quieting of title with recover of possession and damages by the private
respondent was granted by CFI. Petitioner went to the CA, they were given 45 days to submit
their brief. However, they have failed to file their brief because of their counsel’s utter inaction
and gross indifference and neglect since receipt of due notice to file it. They have change their
counsel but the period of filing brief had already expired.

ISSUE: WON Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the
copies, have been violated.

RULING: The appellate court gave them all the time and opportunity to duly prosecute their
appeal by filing their brief in the interval to no avail. The appellate court committed no error
therefore in dismissing the appeal. Petitioners-appellants have shown no valid and justifiable
reason for their inexplicable failure to file their brief and have only themselves to blame for
their counsel's utter inaction and grow indifference and neglect in not having filed their brief for
a year since receipt of due notice to file the same.

COBB-PEREZ VS LANTIN

FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed in relation to the observationmade by the court.
The court assessed treble costs against the p e ti ti o n e r s t o b e p a i d b y t h e i r c o u n s e l s .
Att y s . B a i z a s a n d B o l i n a o s e e k r e c o n s i d e r a ti o n o f t h e d e c i s i o n i n s o f a r a s
i t r e fl e c t s a d v e r s e l y u p o n t h e i r professional conduct and condemns them to pay the
treble costs. court of Appeals rendered judgment sustaining Damaso Perez'p o s i ti o n w i t h
r e s p e c t t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e l e v y, t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e d i n g i nterposed
alternatingly by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic maneuversexpected to be
overthrown by the courts but calculated to delay an execution longoverdue.The peti ti oners
and their counsel chose to att ack the executi on in a piecemeal f ashion causing the
postponement of the projected execution sale six times. Perez s p o u s e s a s r e p r e s e n t e d
b y t h e i r c o u n s e l s o u g h t t h e i s s u a n c e o f p r e l i m i n a r y injunctions to restrain the
execution of the final judgment fromcourts which did not have jurisdicti on and which
would, as expected, initi ally orultimately deny their prayer.

ISSUE: WON Att ys. Baizas and Bolinao used devices to delay the executi on of
the judgment.

RULING

Att ys. Baizas and Bolinao contends that if there was delay it was because they
happened to be more assertive, a quality of lawyers which is not to be condemned. The court
replied that a counsel's asserti veness in espousing with candor and honesty his
client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we do not and cannot
countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position. It is the
duty of a counsel to advise his clients if he finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, and
then it is his bounden duty to advise the latt er to acquiesce and submit, rather than
traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and
temper his client's propensity to litigate.