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 theIs 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 as40 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 < oerGe at ‘Delia T Sutton ts censured. Let a copy of this resobstios be spread m her record: