ATTY. ABDUL A.

BASAR COUNSEL OF MARIO VICTORIA, GUILTY FOR VIOLATION

OF CANON 10 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE COURT

 Mario Victoria and counsel Atty. Abdul A. Basar then tried to deliberately mislead
this Court as to the material dates and status of the decision appealed from.

o An ejectment case was brought up against Isidra Victoria by respondent

spouses Luis and Zenaida Gibe. Mrs. Victoria (mother of Mario Victoria)
denied having entered Judge Lantin’s lot alleged to have been purchased by
the spouses Gibe, claiming that her farmhouse was constructed on the very
lot awarded to her family by the DAR.

 MTC and RTC already ruled in favor of Sps. Gibe.

 Atty. Basar’s filing of his Motion for recon as well as his motion for extension was
indeed filed late.
 Furthermore, the notice of the denial by the CA of his Motion for Reconsideration
“was received by petitioner only [on] March 28, 2001,” thus making it appear that
he had until April 12, 2001 within which to perfect his appeal.

Therefore, The Supreme Court found that Atty. Basar is guilty of violation of Canon
10 of CPR

“A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court;” while Rules 10.01 and
10.03 of the same provide: Rule 10.01—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.

xxx

Moreover, 10.03—A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

But then, Petitioner and his counsel, Atty. Abdul A. Basar, are thus hereby directed
TO SHOW CAUSE, within 10 days from receipt of a copy of this Decision, why they
should not be held in contempt of court and disciplinarily dealt with for violation of
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respectively.
SUPREME COURT ADMONISHED LABOR ARBITER DOMINADOR A. ALMIRANTE
AND ATTY. LORETO M. DURANO FOR MISQUOTING THE DECISION IN THE CASE
OF DOSCH V NLRC.

 Recently, Labor Arbiter issued a decision in favor of Galanida against the Allied
Banking Corporation

o This case arose when Mr. Galanida refused to be transferred to

bacolod because he says that it would impede his family
relationships in Cebu.
o Mr. Galanida working as the accountant book keeper of the ABC and
every now and then got transferred to other branch whenever it
requires him as he was also being promoted . However, this time, he
refused to be transferred.

LA cited the case of Dosch vs. NLRC, which supposedly pens that:

o “Refusal to obey a transfer cannot be considered insubordination

where employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that being away
from the family.”

 NLRC also affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter using the same case of
Dosch vs. NLRC.

The SC found that the above cited phrase was lifted from the syllabus of the SC
Reports Annotated (SCRA). The Court in Dosch did not rule anything of the kind as
proposed by the SCRA.

SCRA does not reflect the opinion of the Court as they are mere works of reporters and
lawyers beyond the Judiciary’s ambit.

Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents
of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a
decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered
 inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not
been proved.

ENDING:

Having cited these portions of the report, Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante and
Atty. Loreto M. Durano violated said provision.

Furthermore, SC reminds them to be more careful in citing the decisions of the

Supreme Court in the future.