Canon 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO
THE COURT.
1. DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. ADORABLE 77 PHIL 468
2. CARLET V. CA 275 SCRA 110
3. DEL ROSARIO V. CHINGCUANGCO 18 SCRA 1156
4. MUNOZ V. CA AND SUTTON 53 SCRA 190
5. ADEZ REALTY INC V. CA GR.100643
6. THE INSURANCE LIFE ASSURANCE CO EMPLOYEE ASSOC V
INSULAR LIFE 37 SCRA 244
7. SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION V CLORIBEL 31 SCRA 1
8. CANLAS V. CA 164 SCRA 160
9. ETERNAL GARDENS V. CA G.R.123698
1. Director of Lands v. Adorable
Facts:
Adorable files a land claim before the Director of Lands. The case
went to the CA for appeal. However, the war broke out. After the war,
Adorable files a reconstitution case before the SC believing that the case was
not resolved by the CA. Atty. Zamora, counsel of the appellee of the case
informed the Court that the case was already settled by the CA in favor of
Adorable.
Issue:
WON the conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper.
Held:
Yes. The conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper.
The Court in this case praised Atty. Zamora’s conduct as the highest
standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes of the deserving
member of the bar.
Hence, the act of Atty. Zamora is proper.
2. Carlet v. CA and Zarate
Facts:
Carlet who is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Sevillo
through Atty. Jimenez files before the Trial Court an action for reconvenyance
of property of Sevillo. Zarate then moved to dismiss such action invoking res
judicata since it was the same facts that had been settled by the trial court, CA
and SC. The action was then dismissed by the Trial Court and ordered Atty.
Jimenez regarding forum-shopping. Atty. Jimenez then appealed it before the
CA, but to no avail.
Issue: WON the action of Atty. Jimenez is proper.
Held: No. The action of Atty. Jimenez is not proper.
 Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A
lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court”.
In the case at bar, the action of Atty Jimenez of filing a reconveyance
case despite his knowledge that there is finality of the case shows that he
does not have good faith towards the court.
Hence, his conduct is not proper.
3. Del Rosario v. Chingcuanco and Imperio
Facts:
The CAR rendered a decision evicting Del Rosario from the land
which he leases from Imperio. However, the former refused to vacate the
land since the latter does not want to refund him of the improvement he had
done to the property. Del Rosario, further, filed a motion before the SC to stay
such execution. Due this, Imperio filed a petition to cite Del Rosario’s counsel
in contempt since said counsel quoted a non-existing SC decision. However, it
was discovered that such belief was brought by a mere typographical error.
Issue:
WON the conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel deserves a disciplinary
action.
Held:
No. The conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel does not deserve a
disciplinary action.
In this case, the Court ruled that the name of the case was given
correctly and there was clearly no deception on the part of the counsel.
Hence, the conduct of said counsel does not deserve a disciplinary
action.
4. Munoz v. CA and Sutton
Facts:
Sutton made some misrepresentations in the facts of the case where
she seeks a review before the SC.
Issue:
WON such conduct deserves disciplinary action.
Held:
Yes.The conduct of Atty. Sutton deserves disciplinary action.
Under the Canon 10 of the CPR, a lawyer shall owes candor and
honesty to the court.
In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Sutton made false facts in her
pleading for review in SC is a clear manifestation that she lacks candor for the
court.
Hence, her conduct warrants a disciplinary action.
5. Adez Realty v. CA
Facts:
Atty. Dacanay made some intercalation in the decision of the Court of
Appeals when he appealed before the SC. Due this, the Court had suspended
him indefinitely. Dacanay argued that it was his client who made the
intercalation and later on he admitted that his secretary made the
intercalation on the document.
Issue:
WON the conduct of Dacanay warrants a suspension.
Held:
Yes. The conduct of Dacanay warrants suspension.
Rule 10.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of the paper, language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority.
In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Dacanay made the intercalation
on the CA decision makes him liable under such rule.
Hence, his conduct warrants a disciplinary action.
6. The Insurance Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc. v. Insular Life
Assurance Co.

Facts:
The Employees Assoc. Files before the CIR a complaint for unfair labor
practice against the Company. The CIR then dismissed such complaint. In its
decision, CIR Judge Martinez misquoted a SC decision in the case of Lopez Sr
v. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass’n: (1) 60 words of the paragraph
quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the original;
(2) Martinez used “For it is settled that...”; the original reads, “For it must be
remembered...” (3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is
actually part of the immediately succeeding paragraph in the SC decision.
In the respondents’ brief, counsels for respondents quoted the CIR’s decision
Issue:
Whether or not the Judge and the respondent’s counsel are liable for
contempt.
Held:
No. The Judge and the respondent’s counsel are not liable for
contempt.
In citing SC’s decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts,
judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. This
is because “only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish
jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction.” (Miranda v. Imperial).
However, there was good faith in both the Judge and the respondent’s
counsel, hence their action is not liable for contempt.
7. Surigao Mineral Reservation vs. Cloribel 31 SCRA 1
Facts:
First Contempt Case. The Supreme Court rendered a decision against
MacArthur International Minerals Corp and in their third Motion for
Reconsideration, Attys. Vicente Santiago and John Beltran Sotto made use of
language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the Court like "it seems
many of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen messengers of God",
"corrupt in its face" and insinuating favoritism and partisanship of the
members of the Court, notable Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice Castro
due to alleged interest in the case (Castro's brother works for one of the
parties). Santiago and Castro wanted for the two justices to inhibit
themselves in the MR. The Court demanded for Santiago and Sotto to "show
cause" why they shouldn't be cited in contempt for the said statements.
Santiago insisted that the statements he made were inadvertently included in
the copy sent to the Court, and was just intended to be in the MR's rough
draft.
Second Contempt Case. Counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth motion for
reconsideration, this time with Atty. Juanito M. Caling as counsel, and again
contained language which the Court found disrespectful. The MR assailed the
decision penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the
decision was written and included seeming threats of elevating the issue to
the World Court and allegations of rise of graft and corruption in the
judiciary. The Court demanded Caling to also "show cause" and he said that it
the motion was already prepared by Santiago when he took the case as was
verified by Morton Meads, an employee from MacArthur.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyers should be cited in contempt?
HELD:
First Contempt Case. Yes. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto
degrades the administration of justice which trangresses Section 3 (d) of Rule
71 of the Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f) of Rule 138 of the RoC which
states that "a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the
dignity of the legal profession". They are also expected to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers but their
acts resulted in the contrary and are intended to create and atmosphere of
distrust. The inadvertence of Santiago's use of words can't be used as a shield
to absolve him of any misdeeds.
Second Contempt Case. Yes. Even if the idea of the language used in the 4th
MR came from Meads, both Santiago and Caling should've adhered to Canon
16 of the Code of Legal Ethics wherein "a lawyer should use his best efforts to
restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those things which a lawyer
himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards
courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in
such wrongdoing, the lawyer should terminated their relation". Santiago is
also liable here since Caling's represent didn't divest him of his capacity as
counsel for MacArthur.
8. CANLAS VS CA 164 SCRA 160
FACTS: Francisco Herrera executed a mortgage over his 8 parcels of land in
favor of L&R Corporation as a security for the several loans which he
obtained from the financing institution. Upon his failure to pay, L&R
extrajudicially foreclosed the said lots. The lands were disposed of in a public
auction and L&R was the highest bidder. Pending redemption, with Atty.
Canlas as his counsel, Herrera was able to obtain a preliminary injunction
against L&R to prevent it from consolidating the title in the corporation’s
name. Two years later, the parties entered into a compromise agreement
where L&R gave Herrera another year to redeem the foreclosed properties
subject to payment of P600,000. They also stipulated that Canlas shall be
entitled to attorney’s fees of 100k. The court approved the compromise.
However, Herrera, due to his financial difficulties, was still unable to pay
neither the several loans nor the attorney’s fees which he owed to Canlas.
Canlas moved for execution insofar as his fees were concerned which the
court granted although he was not really able to collect the fees.
Subsequently, Canlas and Herrera met to discuss the relief for Herrera with
respect to his liability to L&R on the one hand, and his obligation to Canlas on
the other. Canlas contends that Herrera earnestly begged him to redeem the
properties. However, Herrera maintains that it was Canlas who offered to
advance the money provided that they executed a transfer of mortgage over
the properties in Canlas’ favor. (SC believes Herrera’s contention more) They
executed a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or to
Redeem, a document that enabled Canlas to redeem the parcels of land and to
register the same in his name. Herrera only discovered that the said lawyer
registered the lots under his name when he was about to secure a loan from a
bank to finance a wet market project. Herrera contends that the said
document was falsified. The original document only transferred the rights of
Herrera to redeem the property whereas the falsified document stated that
he was transferring all of his rights of the real properties. Herrera filed for an
action for reconveyance of the said lots and a petition to reform the said
document to reflect the true agreement between him and Canlas. TC ruled in
favor of Canlas. CA reversed.
ISSUE: W/n Herrera should have filed a petition for certiorari rather than a
pleading for annulment of judgment W/n the attorney’s fees that Canlas
charged Herrera was reasonable
HELD: Yes. Judgments can only be annulled if there was a showing that there
is extrinsic fraud. In the case at bar, extrinsic fraud was not proved. (Herrera
contends that The judge in the trial court colluded with Canlas in order for
him to sell his land to Canlas.) However, the Court was still unable to find
merit in his petition/ The court cannot overlook the unseemlier side of the
proceeding in which a member of the bar would exploit his mastery of
procedural law to score a technical knowckout over his client, of all people.
No. Even Canlas himself admitted that his client lacks paying capacity and no
financing entity wanted to extend him a loan. This circumstance should have
tempered his demand for his fees. Lawyering is not a money-making venture
and lawyers are not merchants. Canlas’ claim of attorney’s fees in the sum of
P100,000 was unreasonable. The extent of the services he rendered in the
case is not impressive to justify payment of such amount. The case itself did
not involve complex question fact or law that would have required
substantial effort as to research or leg work for the Canalas to support his
demand. The fatc that the properties subject thereof commanded quite
handsome prices in the market should not be a measure of the importance or
non-importance of the case. The petitioner’s stature does not support such
claim. The Court reduced the petitioner’s fees on a quantum merit basis, to
P20,000.00 ***the contract is not void for it is not covered by the ban
(remember sales?) but it is voidable because Canlas exerted undue influence
over Herrera (moral ascendancy of the attorney.)
However, the property was already in the possession of an IPFV so Canlas
was only held liable for actual damages. BUT…Herrera should still pay for the
redemption price that Canlas paid plus attorney’s fees so this will be set-off
against the damages that Canlas has to pay.
9. ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. LILIA SEVILLA and JOSESEELIN,
respondents.
FACTS: Judgment was rendered against the petitioner ordering it to reconvey
the cemeteryto the rightful owners, private respondent sps. Sevilla. Despite
the final decision of the SC,petitioner was able to prevent the execution for
filing petitions for certiorari arguing that the judgment cannot be executed
against it because it was not a party to Civil Case No. C-9297;that the decision
of the trial court in said case never mandated Central Dyeing to
deliverpossession of the property to the private respondents; that certain
facts and circumstanceswhich occurred after the finality of the judgment will
render the execution highly unjust,illegal and inequitable; that the issuance of
the assailed writ of execution violates the lotbuyers' freedom of religion and
worship; and that private respondents' title is beingquestioned in another
case to the cause that the case to be pending for 17 years, and thusrender the
judgment ineffectual. They filed several petitions and motions for
reconsideration with the trial court andthe CA despite the fact that it would
never prosper as the trial court’s decision had longbecome final before the
said petitions were filed.
HELD:
Petition denied. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the
clientand zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they are also officers of the
court, bound toexert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justiceor
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
courtprocesses.
The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this should
notbe permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial
dockets. They donot 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. The mere continuation of petitioners’ dilatory tactics to that the
respondents will notbenefit from the final judgment. The fear of the
petitioner regarding the disturbance of thegrave lots was more imagined
than true because in the writ of execution, the presiding judge imposed that
the enforcement of the writ of possession and break open order shouldbe
applied only to the gate of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park at the eastern side
nearest tothe parcel of land in question where the factory of the
defendant(Central Dyeing) is located,in order to avoid disturbing the peace of
the resting souls over the graves the parcels of land within the said memorial
park
.It has been known that the petition of the private respondents has been moot
andacademic and that they had took possession of the lot. To the end that:
This case delayed the execution of a final judgment for seventeen (17)years
to the prejudice of the private respondents. In the meantime thatpetitioner
has thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot haslong been going on,
so that by the time this case is finally terminated,the whole lot shall have
already been filled with tombstones, leavingnothing for private respondents,
the real owners of the property. This isa mockery of justice.