EVERY CASE MUST RISE AND FALL ON ITS MERITS

ERLINDA I. ILDNER and MAXIMO K. ILUSORIO v. ERLINDA K.

ILUSORIO,
RAMON K. ILUSORIO, MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO, SHEREEN
K. ILUSORIO, CECILIA A. BISUA, and ATTY. MANUEL R.
SINGSON (G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009)
Qustion: Can a lawyer be a subject of a disbarment proceeding
for attempting to bribe a judge to secure a favorable judgment?
Answer: Yes. Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence or gives the
appearance of influencing the court. The possibility of an
attempted bribery is not far from reality considering lawyer’s
persistent phone calls to the judge.

EVERY CASE MUST RISE AND FALL ON ITS MERITS

Question: What woud be an appropriate remedy upon a lawyer
who attempted to bribe a judge in order t secure a favorable
ruling?
Aswer: Heeding the injunction against decreeing disbament
where a lesser sanction would suffice to accomplish the desired
end, a suspension for one yea from the practice of law was foud
to be appropriate in a case when the lawyer attempted to bibe a
judge.

DUTY OF SHERIFF WHEN COURT ISSUES AN ORDER OF

ATTACHMENT
ATTY. RICARDO M. SALOMON, JR. v. ATTY.
JOSELITO FRIAL (A.C. No. 7820, September 12, 2008)
Question: Atty. Frial was the counsel of Lucy Lo
(complainant) in a case against Atty. Salomon (defendant). A
writ of attachment was issued in favor of Lo for Salomon’s Volvo
and Nissan Sentra. In a complaint for disbarment, Atty. Salomon
alleged that the attaching sheriff of Manila turned over the
attached vehicles to Atty. Frial without any authority from the
court. Was the action of the sheriff proper?

DUTY OF SHERIFF WHEN COURT ISSUES AN ORDER OF

ATTACHMENT
Answer: No. The sheriff’s action was not proper. The sheriff must
deposit any object which has been ordered attached to the premises
of the court.
Therefore, the sheriff can be a subject of an administrative case for violation of his duty.

LAWYER’S DUTY AS CUSTODIAN OF ATTACHED ITEMS

Question: A lawyer assumed responsibility to take custody of two
vehicles which were covered by a court order. Unfortunately, one
of the vehicles caught fire. The lawyer never informed the court
that one of the attached vehicles was now a total wreck. Can the
lawyer be held liable for this unfortunate incident?
Answer: Yes. He is guilty of grave misconduct arising from his
violation of Canon 16 of the CPR which provides that “money of
the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming
into the profession of the lawyer should be reported and
accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be
commingled with his own or be used by him.”
Therefore, he is guilty of violating his fiduciary duty.
Fiduciary duty includes the task of ensuring any property held in
favor the client is adequately preserved.
Reason: A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As
such, he is expected to respect the court’s order and processes. He
miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with
the writ of attachment the court issued. He was remiss in his
obligation of taking good care of the attached cars. He also
allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no
business using it. He did not inform the court or at least the
sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. Wht is wose is that
he took custody of the attached vehicles without so much as
informing the cout, let alone securing, its authority.