GR. No: 32078 , September 26, 1948
VICENTE MUNOZ , Pettione
Vs» PEOPLE oF THe PHILIPPINES AND T The courRT oF
APPEALS, Respondents, DELIA T- SUTIDN, Respoveent
FACTS! wee ee ean S|
Respovdent, Delia J. Sutton a member of the
__ Philippine Bar, connéckd with the law fin at
lon oe Ovdonee, Yap , Parlade and Ase ciates, =
yust be hela accountable for f failure +o live up ot
that exacting - standowd expected of counsel, more
spect cally with reference > a duty owing this
Tribunal She fouled Pe meet the test of cavelor
ard hanes wired of pleaders when, ia ov
petition we Sere red Ly her +o review
a Court of Appeals decision, she ~atvibuted to it
a finding 6 _fodks in veekless olisveqard eg
he beact pf ‘what in truth was i’ version ax
to what in tarth wac rk version ac fo what
tanspired-
was set forte in our vealuton in Vicente Murex
ys. People: of the Phulippirres ard the Court of
Appeals —deeistor the proseeuben and the defene
two untuiobing versions of the jncident —
that gave vise “h fhe Cae , sah upon aor
nation of the evdewe , the. ‘of
__ found as did the tal SS A fhe ae
defene | is unbelievable , that this finding et theIs inconsistent with come established fack: a
Atoney Sutton prepared a petition: that is
Oe encicien with the pat avd” atvibuted tt ae
of
“findings of the Cou Appeals which 1s vot
tue ~ it being conceded ee the two versions
recounted above are by themselves oveduble , alth-
h they are contlicting, the came cannot be
binding ~ om avd Is there fore veviewable lby the
Homorable Supreme Court. 2
A heaving “for ie issue ensued requiring an
lawyers -pariners toe) firm to be present At
such a heaving vesponclent Delia T- Sutton appeared:
While her demeanor was respectful it was obvious
that che was far finn conbate. There, cetainly
was lack of awareness of the Sevious Chavcicley
of her misdeed-
ISSUE: s :
Whether ey not the aets Atty: Sut in
tistaRemly _preparit a felse. pehibo constituting
- yiolation of the Canons of Professional Ethics
HELD:
The conduct of the lawyer before the ecuvt
and with other lawyere should be chavacknzed
by cander and fairness. Tt is not candid or fair
fr_the lamyer “Anew ngly to misquohe the contents
ofa paper “the testimony of a witness the
language oy the argument of opposing oe
or the lanquage of a decision or a Fedbook , ny
with knowledge’ of ts _ invalidity sb cite as40 assert as fact that which has not been
oaved oy tn those jutsdichims where a side
has the of ning and closing eduierss to misi-
ead _Wws opponent by concealing ov withhotcling
vsitions in his opening avgumevt upon which Ws
sue sien intends 1D vely
The “Joint Apology” thus offered did mitigate to
“some exter the viability of “respondeut Suttm-
_ while expressing | egret ~ and offewing apology there.
Was lacking fionk admission that what was
oe loy her should uot be chavaciened mevely
“emis” consisting ac they do uae
sacar Even wih due rteagnition then that
cunse| is expected +p display the utmost 2eal
iw defense of | Cla clients cause, it muct newer be —
__at the Cees of deviakon yn the tuth- As
set forth in the or licable Canon of Legal Ethics.
"Nothing operates more cortavialy to create” oy fo
ister ~ popula prejudice against leawupens aS A
elas, amd_to deprive the” profession “of that full
measure of public esteem and omnfihenté which
belongs to “he, rope Aischawge of ts cuties
than” does the false claim , offen ‘set up _ by the
wunceruphlous tin clefense of questionable “rauisaction
yhat it ts the duty of the Jawyer fo do whatever
may enable him + cnaeed in winning Wis clrents
cates” what is more, the ololiqerhion So the bends,
especially +o this cag fy candor and honesty
fakes prectdené . It is by virtue of such considevatias
et! eros a oor al = are ee < oerGe at ‘Delia T Sutton ts
censured. Let a copy of this resobstios
be spread m her record: