V.

DUTY OF THE LAWYER TO THE COURTS

A. Duty of Candor

SPOUSES UMAGUING vs. ATTY. DE VERA February 04, 2015

FACTS:

Umaguing ran for the position of SK Chairman but lost to her rival. Complainants lodged an election
protest and engaged in the services of Atty. De Vera. According to the complainants, Atty. De Vera
moved at a glacial pace; he rushed the preparation of the documents and attachments for the election
protest. Two (2) of these attachments are the Affidavits of material witnesses, which was personally
prepared by Atty. De Vera. At the time that the aforesaid affidavits were needed to be signed by the
witnesses, they were unavailable. To remedy this, Atty. De Vera look for the nearest kin of the witnesses
and ask them to sign and he had all the documents notarized. He hastily filed the election protest with
full knowledge that the affidavits were falsified. In further breach of his oath, the integrity and
competency of Atty. De Vera, the complainants withdraw him and for lack of trust and confidence in as
their counsel. Complainants sought Atty. De Vera’s disbarment.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable. Whether or not a case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.

HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that, fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client and with
the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. Xxx The
Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing
any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
clients. xxx In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
“[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.”

Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified document before a court. Disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers are designed to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this
country should remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath.

Yes. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of
deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest
and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
administration of persons unfit to practice in them. xxx The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.

B. Duty of Respect

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. SANCHEZ

GR No. 75209 – September 30, 1987

KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY V. NLRC

GR No. 78791 – September 30, 1987

SUBJECT: Canon 13 – Influencing or Giving appearance of Influencing Court

FACTS:

The Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Union for Solidarity, Activism and
Nationalism-Olalia had been conducting pickets which intensified during the period of July 8-10, 1987
outside Padre Faura gate of the SC building. Since June 17, 1981

On July 10, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw
graciously and requiring the union leaders and their counsels and other individuals to appear before the
Court on July 14 and then and there to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, was further required to show cause why
he should not be administratively dealt with.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court with an
assurance that such acts will not be repeated. He prayed for the Court’s leniency considering that the
picket was actually spearheaded by the leaders of the PAMANTIK, an unregistered loosed alliance of
about 75 unions in the southern Tagalog area and not by either the UFE or KILU.

ISSUE: WON the respondents should be held in contempt and Atty. Espinas be administratively dealt
with.
HELD:

Grievances, if any, should be ventilated to the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions,
motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrator of
justice entitled to “proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside
interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.

“It is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of
issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided
upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by
bias, prejudice or sympathies.” (In re Stolen).

The acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the dignity of the Court, but equally a
violation of the constitutional right of the adverse party and the citizenry at large to have their causes
tried fairly.

The right of free speech and of assembly of the individuals herein are not violated because any attempt
to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either rights amounts to an abuse
thereof and is no loner within the ambit of constitutional protection. However, being non-lawyers, the
duty and responsibility of advising them rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of
record, Atty. Espinas. It is the duty of all members of the legal profession as officers of the court to
properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice.

The contempt charges were dismissed.

 GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW VS LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT

FACTS:

In 1952, Tomas Maglucot, one of the registered owners and respondents’ predecessor-in-
interest, filed a petition to subdivide a Lot. Consequently, the CFI or Negros Oriental issued an order
directing the parties to subdivide said lot into 6 portions.

Sometime in 1963, Guillermo Maglucot rented a portion of subject lot. Subsequently, Leopoldo
and Severo Maglucot rented portions of subject lot in 1964 and 1965, respectively, each paying rentals
therefor. Both of them built houses on their corresponding lots and continued paying rentals to Mrs.
Ruperta Salma, who represented Roberto Maglucot, petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. In December
1992, however, the respondents stopped paying rentals and claimed ownership of the lot.

The lower court rendered judgement in favor of petitioners having found the existence of tax
declarations as indubitable proof that there was subdivision. It was likewise found that Tomas Maglucot
himself commenced the action for the partition.

The CA revered the decision of the RTC and declared that there was no partition as there was no
conclusive evidence of such.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid partition in 1952.

HELD:

Yes. It must be noted that there was a prior oral partition in 1946. Although the oral agreement
was merely tentative, the facts subsequent thereto all point to the confirmation of said oral partition. By
virtue of that oral agreement, the parties took possession of specific portions of the subject lot. In 1592,
an order for partition was issued by the cadastral court. There is no evidence that there has been any
change in the possession of the parties. The parties’ actual possession in accordance to the oral
agreement indicates the permanency and ratification of such.

Furthermore, record show that respondents were paying rent for the use the subject lot. Had
they been of the belief that they were co-owners of the entire lot, they would not have paid rent. Since
the possession of the respondents were found to be that of lessees of petitioners, it goes without saying
that the latter were in possession of the lot in the concept of an owner since 1953 up to the time the
present action was commenced.

Finally, the Court takes notice of the language utilized by counsel for petitioners. Thrice in the
petition, counsel made reference to the researcher of the CA. He alluded to the lack of scrutiny and lack
of study, not referring to the record and for doing a poor job in researching. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behaviour before the courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the
decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED.
 Habawel v. Court of Tax Appeals

FACTS: Surfield Development Corporation (SDC), represented by Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina,
elevated a Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of their petition for refund for the excess of realty taxes paid
to a City Government, to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The case was assigned to the CTA’s First
Division (FD). CTA’s FD, however, denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Undeterred, 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 or respect” for the doctrine of stare decisis in not 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 pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160.
Unfortunately, the CTA FD denied SDC’s motion for reconsideration. In addition, it took note of
the language Habawel and Medina employed in their motion, and thus required them to explain within
five days from receipt why they should not be liable for indirect contempt or be made subject to
disciplinary action, thusly:

However, this Court finds the statements of petitioner’s counsel that “it is gross
ignorance of the law for the Honorable Court to have held that it has no jurisdiction over
this instant petition; the grossness of this Honorable Court’s ignorance of the law is
matched only by the unequivocal expression of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction over
the instant case” and “this Court lacked the understanding and respect for the doctrine
of “stare decisis” as derogatory, offensive and disrespectful.

Habawel and Medina submitted a compliance, in which they appeared to apologize but
nonetheless justified their language as, among others, “necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Court’s
attention to the grievousness of the error by calling a spade by spade.”
The CTA FD found the apology wanting in sincerity and humility, observing that they chose
words that were “so strong, which brings disrepute the Court’s honor and integrity” for brazenly
pointing to “the Court’s alleged ignorance and grave abuse of discretion,” and thus found them guilty of
direct contempt of court for failing to uphold their duty of preserving the integrity and respect due to
the courts.

ISSUE: Whether or not the language employed by Habawel and Medina in their motion and compliance
were contumacious?

HELD: Yes. The test for criticizing a judge’s decision is whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in
good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
By the statements employed, Habawel and Medina clearly and definitely overstepped the
bounds of propriety as attorneys, and disregarded their sworn duty to respect the courts. 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 submissions presented to the same court or
judge in which the proceedings are pending are treated as direct contempt because they are equivalent
to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the
administration of justice.
No attorney, no matter his great fame or high prestige, should ever brand a court or judge as
grossly ignorant of the law, especially if there was no sincere or legitimate reason for doing so.

C. Duty to Assist in the Admin of Justice

CRISOSTOMO ET AL. V. ATTY. NAZARENO

A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014

FACTS:

Sometime in 2001, complainants Euprocina Crisostomo, Marilyn L. Solis, Evelyn Marquizo,

Rosemarie Balatucan, Mildred Batang, Marilen Minerales and Melinda D. Sioting, individually purchased
housing units in Patricia South Villa, Anabu II, Imus, Cavite from Rudex International Development Corp.
But because of several inadequacies and construction defects of the housing units and the subdivision
itself, complainants sought the rescission of their respective contracts to sell before the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeks the refund of the monthly amortizations they had paid. Rudex
then was represented by their legal counsel Atty. Philip Z.A. Nazareno in the two batches of rescission
cases filed by the complainant.

Thereafter, in August 2003, Rudex file three petitions for review before the HLURB assailing in the
certificate against forum shopping that it has not commenced or has knowledge of any similar action or
proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court or tribunal. And Atty. Nazareno filed and
ejectment case against Sioting and her husband before MTC Cavite. The said notification was notarized
by Atty. Nazareno himself.

Subsequently, complainants jointly filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against the
respondent Atty. Nazareno, claiming that the latter made false declarations in saying that no similar
actions or proceedings have been commenced by Rudex when in fact similar actions for rescission has
been filed by herein complainants before HLURB against Rudex and Atty. Nazareno. Complainants also
asserted that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public since he only assigned one
document number in all the certifications against forum shopping that were attached to the six
complaints for rescission and ejectment. As a result, the HLURB dismissed the Rudex complaints on the
ground that certification against forum shopping was false and in violation of Sec. 5 Rule 7, of Rules of
Court. The IBP Board of Governors recommended Atty. Nazareno will be held administratively liable and
thereby penalized with one month suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable?

RULING:

Yes. Under Sec. 5 Rule 7 of the Rules of the court, the submission of false entries in a
certification against forum shopping constitutes a direct or indirect contempt of court and subjects the
erring counsel to administrative and criminal actions. In this case, respondent’s conduct amounted to
breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for the law and legal process. He also violated rule 1.01 of the code which
proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court
hereby suspends him from the practice of law for a period of 1 year and he is permanently disqualified
from being a notary public and his notarial commission is hereby revoked.
Delaying any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest

De Los Santos II v. Barbosa, A.C. No. 6681. June 17, 2015

FACTS:

Complainant Victor D. De Los Santos II, filed a complaint with The prosecutor charging The respondent
Atty. Nestor C. Barbosa for obstruction of justice. However, The prosecutor dismissed The obstruction if
justice complain for insufficiency of evidence because The respondent argued That the name of his
client Canaco’s son was Victor C. De Los Santos and not Victor P. De Los Santos as stated in The
Information charging Canaco with violation of PD No. 651. In February 2005, De Los Santos filed a
petition for disbarment with The Court charging The respondent with multiple gross violations of his
oath as a lawyer and Canons of Professional Ethics for unlawfully obstructing and delaying The
proceedings. Thus, referred to The IBP for investigation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nestor C. Barbosa committed a multiple gross violations of his oath as a
lawyer and Canons of Professional Ethics for unlawfully obstructing and delaying The proceedings?

HELD: Yes. After a careful study of the records, the SC approves the findings of the IBP Commission and
The IBP Board of Governors and resolves To modify The recommended penalty of suspension from The
practice of law To a period of one (1) year. Under Canon 10 of The Code of Professional Responsibility
that the lawyers owe candor, fairness, and good faith to The court.

Particularly, Rule 10.01 provides that "a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent To The doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead. A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. A lawyer's first
duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. In This case, the respondent deliberately
misled The MeTC, The Commission and This Court into believing That Victor Canaco De Los Santos
(Canaco's son whose birth certificate is at issue in The criminal case) and Victor P. De Los Santos (named
in The Information) are different persons. The Court agrees with The findings of The IBP Commissioner
That The difference in The middle initial is a mere Typographical error on The part of The City
Prosecutor. Members of The Bar are expected at all times To uphold The integrity and dignity of The
legal profession and refrain from any act or omission, That might lessen The Trust and confidence
reposed by The public in The fideliTy, honesty, and integrity of The legal profession
NEMESIO FLORAN and CARIDAD FLORAN, complainants, vs. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, respondent.

AC No. 5325, February 9, 2016

Facts: Nemesio and Caridad Floran filed a complaint against Atty. Roy Ediza (Ediza) regarding the
complainants’ 3.5525 hectare parcel of land in Misamis Oriental. The said land was not registered. The
Court found that Ediza deceived the complainants by asking them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale of
the part of the subject land to him. Aside from that, the complainants also gave Ediza half of the
proceeds of the sale of a part of the of the subject land. Such proceeds amounted to P125,463 and such
was given for the registration of the land. In its resolution in 2011, the Court suspended Ediza and
ordered him to return the documents of the land and the P125,463 to the complainants. Ediza was able
to serve his suspension. However, he failed to return the documents and the money to the
complainants. As such, the complainants kept on sending the letters to the Chief Justice to follow up
with the case. In response to the letters of the complainants, the Court kept on ordering Ediza to return
the documents and the money. Despite repeated orders of the court, he still failed to deliver the
documents and the money. Some of the reasons provided by Ediza everytime he was asked to show
cause include: (1) vagueness of the description on the documents that should be returned; (2) finding
new evidence to reopen the case and support his defense; and (3) demanding that he should not be
ordered to return the same for already complying with the suspension.

Issue: Whether or not Ediza should be disbarred

Held: Yes. The Court finds that Ediza should be disbarred because he failed to obey the orders and
processes of the Court. First, it is mandated under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
that “A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.” Second, it is provided in Rule 12.04 of the same code that “A lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court process.” In this case, it is
clearly seen that Ediza kept on delaying the case by claiming ignorance over the documents, allegedly
discovering new evidence, and filing motions. Lastly, Section 27 or Rule 138 provides that the Court can
disbar a lawyer for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. In this case, Ediza kept
on disobeying the Court by not returning the documents and the money to the complainants despite
numerous order. Thus, the Court disbarred Ediza.
D. Duty to Refrain from Impropriety

IN RE: ALMACEN, 31 SCRA 562

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” to the
Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a tribunal “peopled by people who are
calloused to our pleas for justice…”. He also expressed strong words as against the judiciary
like “justice… is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” . The petition rooted from the case he lost due
to the absence of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of
Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again
dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He
claimed that this petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as
soon as he regained confidence in the justice system.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts.

HELD:

YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.

RATIO:

It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen himself
because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth
and alleged injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused enough
damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a number of
foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and references. Between
disbarment and suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until
further orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of
law.
 RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR.
ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 9, 2007

FACT:

Criminal Case was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Buyser, who denied the Demurrer to the
Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to
prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. Consequently, the counsel for the defense
filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State
Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that the
original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject to bail.        Judge Buyser
inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the “harsh insinuation” of Senior Prosecutor
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo that he “lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate,” by allegedly
suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused. The case
was transferred to Judge Tan and Order favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit. respondent appealed
from the Orders to the CA. Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the
publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in Mindanao Gold Star Daily.

Respondent posted the required bond and was released from the custody of the law. He appealed the
indirect contempt order to the CA. Despite the citation of indirect contempt, respondent presented
himself to the media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS, and again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan
and the trial court’s disposition in the proceedings of criminal Case.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating the Lawyer’s Oath?

HELD: Yes, Respondent violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying
judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder
suspect to bail out, which appeared in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent’s statements in the
article, which were made while Criminal. Case was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of
Canon 13, which states that “a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.” In regard to the radio interview
given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge
Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated
that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead
of studying the law, and that he was a liar. Respondent also violated the Lawyer’s Oath, as he has sworn
to “conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.