Canons 10 & 11
Petition for Review on Certiorari,
1. Vda. de Victoria vs CA, 449 SCRA 319 (Jan 26, 2005)
On October 27, 1993, respondent
spouses Luis and Zenaida Gibe filed a
Complaint for “Ejectment and Damages
with a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction”3 against Isidra Vda. de Victoria
(the mother of herein petitioner Mario
Victoria), Eusebio Arida, Juan Becina and
Guillermo Becina.
Eight days after promulgation and receipt
of the MTC decision or on May 29, 1998,
the defendants in the Ejectment Case
filed a Notice of Appeal8 without,
however, filing a supersedeas bond to
stay the immediate execution of the
decision and depositing monthly rentals.
In the meantime, the appeal filed by the
defendants in the Ejectment Case before
the RTC of Calauan, Laguna was
dismissed by Branch 92 thereof by Order
of October 7, 1998 for failure to file their
appeal memorandum.
On March 28, 2000, petitioner instituted
another special civil action for certiorari,
this time with the Court of Appeals (CA).
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration25
having been denied by the CA by
Resolution of July 12, 2000 for being filed
2 days beyond the reglementary period,
he filed the petition at bar after he was
granted, on his motion, an extension of
thirty days to file the petition,
conditioned upon the timeliness of the
motion for extension.
This Court notes with consternation
petitioner’s
attempts, with the aid of his counsel,
Atty. Abdul A. Basar, to deliberately
mislead this Court as to the material
dates and status of the decision appealed
from, thereby impeding if not frustrating
the ends of justice.
In his Motion for Extension of Time to File
petitioner declared under oath that: (1)
he had “filed a timely Motion for
Reconsideration” of the CA Resolution
dismissing his petition for certiorari, and
(2) the notice of the denial by the CA of
his Motion for
Reconsideration “was received by
petitioner only [on] March 28, 2001,”
thus making it appear that he had until
April 12, 2001 within which to perfect his
appeal.
Significantly, petitioner did not disclose,
either in his motion for extension of time
or in his subsequent petition, the date on
which he received the Resolution of the
CA denying his petition for certiorari,
thereby concealing the actual period for
appeal from the Court processor.
As already noted, petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration failed to suspend the
running of the reglementary period since
it was filed two days too late. Worse, the
Registry Return Receipt of the CA
Resolution denying petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration shows that it was
received by counsel for petitioner’s agent
on September 20, 2000, and not March
28, 2001 as claimed by petitioner. In fact,
by Resolution dated May 7, 2001, the CA
had ordered the issuance of an Entry of
Judgment in this case, which was later
withdrawn by Resolution of October 23,
2001
following receipt by it of the instant
Petition on May 15, 2001.
It cannot be overemphasized that parties and their
counsel are duty-bound to observe honesty and
truthfulness in all their pleadings, motions and
statements before the courts. Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states, “A lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the court;” while
Rules10.01 and 10.03 of the same provide: Rule 10.01—
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice. X x x Rule 10.03—A
lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Petitioner and his counsel, Atty. Abdul A. Basar, are thus
hereby directed TO SHOW CAUSE, within 10 days from
receipt of a copy of this Decision, why they should not
be held in contempt of court and disciplinarily dealt
with for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, respectively.
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice. (See Vda.. de Victoria
vs CA,)
2. Allied Banking Corp vs CA, 416 SCRA 65
Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was
hired by petitioner Allied Banking
Corporation on 11 January 1978 and rose
from accountant-book(k)eeper to assistant
manager in 1991.
On 5 October 1994, Galanida received an
inter-office communication7 (“Memo”)
dated 8 September 1994 from Allied
Bank’s Vice-President for Personnel, Mr.
Leonso C. Pe.
The Memo informed Galanida that Allied
Bank had terminated his services
effective 1 September 1994.
The reasons given for the dismissal were:
(1) Galanida’s continued refusal to be
transferred from the Jakosalem, Cebu
City branch; and (2) his refusal to report
for work despite the denial of his
application for additional vacation leave.
After several hearings, the Labor Arbiter
held that Allied Bank had abused its
management prerogative in ordering the
transfer of Galanida to its Bacolod and
Tagbilaran branches. In ruling that
Galanida’s refusal to transfer did not
amount to insubordination, the Labor
Arbiter misquoted this Court’s decision in
Dosch v. NLRC
In the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante
and Atty. Durano began by quoting from
Dosch, but substituted a portion of the
decision with a headnote from the SCRA
syllabus, which they even underscored. In
short, they deliberately made the quote from
the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the
Supreme Court. We admonish them for what
is at the least patent carelessness, if not an
outright attempt to mislead the parties and
the courts taking cognizance of this case.
Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that a
lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the text of a decision or
authority. It is the duty of all officers of the
court to cite the rulings and decisions of the
Supreme Court accurately.
A lawyer shall not 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 inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
asserts as a fact that which has not been proved. (See
Allied Banking vs CA)
3. Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs Amado, 24 SCRA 402
Acting upon a claim for compensation,
under Act No. 3428, filed by Rufino
Abuyen, on June 18, 1956, for a disease
allegedly contracted in the course of his
employment, as foreman of the Samar
Mining Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to
as the petitioner.
A reconsideration of said decision having
been denied, on March 24, 1960,
petitioner commenced Civil Case No.
42836 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, for a writ of certiorari and
prohibition, with preliminary injunction,
against Francisco P. Arnado, as Regional
Administrator of said office, Pompeyo V.
Tan, as the writer of said decision, and
claimant Abuyen.
On July 21, 1961, petitioner commenced,
against the same respondents in said
Case No. 42836, the present action for
certiorari and prohibition, with
preliminary injunction, in the Court of
First Instance of Cebu.
Upon the filing of the case, said court
issued a restraining order, which was,
later, followed by a writ of preliminary
injunction, upon the filing and approval of
the requisite bond.
After appropriate proceedings, said court
subsequently rendered the decision
mentioned in the opening paragraph
hereof, dismissing the petition, upon the
ground that respondent Tan had
authority to hear and pass upon the
aforementioned claim of Abuyen, and
dissolving the writ of preliminary
injunction issued meanwhile.
Petitioner has succeeded in prolonging
the litigation, for the compensation
involved therein, for twelve (12) years.
What is more, petitioner's contention was
based upon a theory that had been
rejected by this Court as early as August,
1961. Then again, the compensability of
Abuyen's disability had never been
questioned by petitioner herein. Hence, it
is manifest that the purpose of this case,
like the previous one, has been merely to
delay, a policy "often resorted to"—in the
language of Mr. Justice Reyes (J.B.L.)—"as
a means of draining the resources of the
poorer party"—in this case a tuberculosis
patient—"and of compelling it to submit
out of sheer exhaustion."9 Thus, the
conduct of petitioner's counsel is hardly
compatible with the duty of the Bar to
assist in the Administration of Justice, not
to obstruct or defeat the same.
Where counsel interposed an appeal in behalf of his
client manifestly for the purpose of delay, a policy
"often resorted to as a means of draining the resources
of the poorer party" and "of compelling it to submit out
of sheer exhaustion," such conduct of counsel is hardly
compatible with the duty of the Bar to assist in the
administration of justice, not to obstruct or defeat the
same.
A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. ( See
Samar Mining vs Amado)
4. Datu Budencio Dumanlag vs Atty. Winston Intong,
A. C. No. 8638
Complainant claims to be a leader of the
Indigenous People of Bangcud,
Malaybalay and the President of the
Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities
Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier’s Mining
Prospectors and Location
Corporation.
In a Resolution dated July 19, 2010, the
Court
required respondent to file his comment
on the complaint, which he failed to do.
Consequently, in a Resolution dated
March 9, 2011, the Court issued a show
cause order against respondent
reiterating compliance with Resolution
dated July 19, 2010. On September 28,
2011, the Court imposed a fine of
P1,000.00 upon respondent for his
continued failure to comply with the
directive to file comment. However,
respondent still failed to pay said fine, or
to file his comment. Thus, in a Resolution
dated July 1, 2013, the Court dispensed
with the filing of respondent’s comment,
and referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and
recommendation.
Respondent cannot, however, escape accountability for
his repetitive disregard of the resolutions of the Court
requiring him to file his comment to the complaint and
to pay the fine imposed upon him for his failure to do
so. As correctly pointed out by Commissioner
Villanueva, the Court issued three resolutions dated July
19, 2010, March 9, 2011, and September 28, 2011,
requiring respondent to file his comment, to show
cause for his failure to file, and to pay a fine of
P1,000.00 for such failure. But all three were left
unheeded.
Respondent ought to know that orders of the court are
“not mere requests but directives which should have
been complied with promptly and completely.” “He
disregarded the oath he took when he was accepted to
the legal profession ‘to obey the laws and the legal
orders of the duly constituted legal authorities.’ x x x His
conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon
to obey court orders and processes and is expected to
stand foremost in complying with court directives as an
officer of the court,” pursuant to Canon 11 of the CPR,
which mandates that “[a] lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers x x x.”
A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others. (See Datu Dumanlag vs Atty.
Intong)
5. In the matter of the Alleged Improper Conduct of
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto Badoy, Jr. ,
395 SCRA 231
Pursuant to Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Saguisag
should have observed the respect due to
respondent magistrates for the maintenance
of the court’s supreme importance. Upon
being ordered to stop arguing simultaneously
with Justice Cuevas, he should have complied
and behaved accordingly. Had he done so,
he would not have been ordered to leave the
courtroom. Indeed, he failed to comport
himself in a manner required of an officer of
the court.
A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts. (See
Badoy)
6. Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465
A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or having no materiality to the
case. (See Estrada)
Canons 12-14
7. City Sheriff, Iligan City vs Fortunato, 288 SCRA 190
(1998)
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he
has adequately prepared himself with the law and the
facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the
order of its preference. He should also be ready with
the original documents for the comparison with the
copies. (See City Sheriff)
8. Millare vs Montejo, 246 SCRA 1 (1995)
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause. (See Millare)
9. Roxas vs CA, 156 SCRA 252 (1987)
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same
or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. (See
Roxas)
10. Cobb-Perez vs Lantin, 23 SCRA 637 (1968)
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes. (See Cobb-Perez)
11. Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs Cloribel, 31
SCRA 1 (1970)
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or
harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
(See Surigao)
12. PNB vs Uy Teng Piao, 57 Phil 337 (1932)
Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of
his client, except: (a) on formal matters, such as the
mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and
the like; or (b) on substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which
event he must, during his testimony entrust the trial of
the case to another counsel. (See PNB)
13. Earth Minerals Exploration vs Macaraig, 194 SCRA 1
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arsing
from the same cause. (See Earth Minerals, Jaca)
14. Jaca vs Davao Lunber Company, 198 Phil, 493
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arsing
from the same cause. (See Earth Minerals, Jaca)
15. Alonso vs Villamor, 490 SCRA 424
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes. (See Alonso)
16. Erlinda Bildner vs Erlinda Ilusorio & Atty. Manuel
Singson, G.R. No. 15384 (June 5, 2009)
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek oppotunity for,
cuultivating familiarity with Judges. (See Bildner)
17. Burbe vs Magulta, 383 SCRA 276
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a
person solely on account of the latter's race, sex, creed
or status of life, of because of his own opinion regarding
the guilt of the said person. (See Burbe, Mercado)
If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of
any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation,
then the professional employment is established. (See
Burbe)
18. Mercado vs Vitriolo, 459 SCRA 1 (May 26, 2005)
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a
person solely on account of the latter's race, sex, creed
or status of life, of because of his own opinion regarding
the guilt of the said person. (See Burbe, Mercado)
Factors to prove attorney-client privilege (See
Mercado)
Canons 13- 14
19. Dr. Teresita Lee vs Atty. Simando, A.C. No.9537
(June 10, 2013)
14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation
of an indigent client unless: (a) he is not in a position to
carry out the work effectively or competently; (b) he
labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective client. (See Lee)
Canon 15
20. Alcala vs De Vera, 56 SCRA 30
A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his clients. (See
Alcala)
21. Lim vs Villarosa, 490 SCRA 494
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective
client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable, whether
the matter would involve a conflict with another client
or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client. (See Lim)
22. Ferdinand Samson vs Atty. Edgardo Era, A.C. No.
6664 (July 16, 2013)
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interest except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts. (See Samson)
23. Rabanal vs Tugade, 383 SCRA 484
A written contract is NOT an essential element in the
employment of an attorney – the contract may be
express or implied.
To establish the attorney-client relation, it is sufficient
that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought
and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.
(See Rabanal)
Canons 16 – 18
24. Espiritu vs Ulep, 458 SCRA 1
An attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary. (See
Espiritu and Campos)
25. William Campos, Jr. vs Atty. Alexander Estebal, A.C.
No. 10443 (Aug 8, 2016)
An attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary. (See
Espiritu and Campos)
26. Avito Yu vs Atty. Cesar Tajanlangit, A.C. No. 5691
(March 13, 2009)
An attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary. (See
Espiritu and Campos)
27. Conchita Baltazar vs Atty. Juan Banez, Jr., A.C. no.
9091 (Dec 11, 2013)
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client’s interest are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for
the client. (See Baltazar)
28. People vs Lagramada, 388 SCRA 173
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. (See People)
29. Urma vs Beltran, 627 SCRA 373
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. (See Urma and Friend)
30. Friend vs Union Bank of the Philippines, 476 SCRA
453
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. (See Urma and Friend)
31. Sarraga, Sr. vs Banco Filipino, 593 SCRA 566
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service
which he knows or should know that he is not qualified
to render. However, he may render such service if, with
the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. (See
Sarraga)
32. Lucila Barbuco vs Atty. Raymundo Beltran, 436
SCRA 57 (Aug 11, 2004)
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. (See Barbuco)
33. Abiero vs Juanino, 452 SCRA 1 (Aug 9, 2005)
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
(See Abiero)
The New Code of Judicial Conduct A.M. No. 03-05-01
Canon 1
34. In re: Cunanan, et al, 94 Phil 534
Section 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function
independently on the basis of their assessment of the
facts and in accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any extraneous
influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference,
direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
(see Cunanan)
35. Judge Crispin Bravo vs Atty. Miguel Morales, 500
SCRA 154
Section 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high
standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public
confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to the
maintenance of judicial independence. (see Judge
Bravo)
36. OCA vs Former Judge Rosabella Tormis, A.C. No.
9920 (Aug 30, 2016) (formerly A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691)
Canons 2 & 3
37. Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Judge
Damaso Herrera, RTC Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna, 633
SCRA 1.
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach but that it is perceived to be be
so in the view of a reasonable observer. (see Cases
Submitted)
38. Re: Verified Complaint of Catalina Aliling against
Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, Court of
Appeals, Manila Relative to C.A., G.R. No. 103042, I.P.I.
No. 16-244-CA-J (Sept 6, 2018)
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice. (see Verified
Complaint; see Morales)
39. Arthur Morales vs Associate Justices Leoncia Real-
Dimagiba, Jhosep Lopez and Ramon Garcia, I.P.I No.
16-243-CA-J (Oct 11, 2016)
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice. (see Verified
Complaint; see Morales)
40. Kilat vs Judge Mariano Macias, 474 SCRA 101
Section 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartiality or in which it
may appear to a reasonable observer… (see Kilat; see
Salcedo)
41. Salcedo vs Bollozos, 623 SCRA 27
Section 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartiality or in which it
may appear to a reasonable observer… (see Kilat; see
Salcedo)
Canons 4 – 6
42. Mercado vs Salcedo, 604 SCRA 4
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. (see
Mercado; Macias)
43. Macias vs Macias, 601 SCRA 203
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. (see
Mercado; Macias)
44. Lorenzana vs Ma. Cecilia Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09- conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others
2000 (April 2, 2014) subject to their influence, direction or control. (see De
la Cruz)
Section 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of
the judicial office to advance their private interests or 51. Ricon vs Marquez, 637 SCRA 491
this of a member of their family or of anyone else nor
Section 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
shall they convey or permit others to convey the
incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
impression that anyone is in a special position
duties. (see Ricon)
improperly to influence them in the performance of
judicial duties. (see Lorenzana)

45. Barias vs Valencia, 581 SCRA 24

Section 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their

personal fiduciary and financial interest and shall make
reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial
interest of members of their family. (see Barias)

46. In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis Biraogo in

Biraogo vs Nograles and Limkaichong, A.M. Case No.
092-19 (Feb 24, 2009)

Section 9. Confidential information acquired by judges I

their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by
and for any other purpose related to their judicial
duties. (see Undated Letter)

47. Santiago lll vs Enriquez, 579 SCRA 1

Section 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence

over all other activities. (see Santiago)

48. Ocampo vs Arcaya-Chua, 619 SCRA 59

Section 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to

maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and
personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this
purpose of the training and other facilities which should
be made available, under judicial control, to judges. (see
Ocampo)

49. Visbal vs Vanilla, 584 SCRA 11

Section 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,

including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently,
fairly and with reasonable promptness. (see Visbal)

50. De la Cruz vs JudgeCarretas, 559 Phil 5 (2007)

Section 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in

all proceedings before the court and be patient,
dignified and courteous in relation to litigants,
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar