Villasis vs.

CA
G.R. No. L-34369
September 30, 1974

Subject: Duty of a lawyer in accepting a case midstream

Ponente: Teehankee J,

Facts

Atty. Valente filed a motion to withdraw as counsel due to his having been employed as
technical assistant of the Supreme Court. The case is going to be handled by another counsel
for the client named, Atty. Tayco. After some lapse of time, the case as brought to the
appellate court without appellants having filed their brief at all was dismissed due to failure
to file their brief within the reglementary 45-day period.

Atty. Tayco avers that apparently, he had not received the notice to file brief by the court.
However, said notice to file brief was directed to the previous counsel, Atty. Valiente

Issues

1. Whether Atty. Tayco’s defense can be given merit.

Ruling

1. No. According to the Court, Atty. Tayco, being the new counsel of his client has the duty
and is presumed to be acquainted on the attending circumstances of the case that he
accepted midstream. In view of Atty Tayco’s actions, he failed to do so because such brief
would have been filed had he known or acquainted himself of the fact that the notice to file
brief was forwarded to the previous counsel.

-END-

CHEMPHIL vs. CA
G.R. Nos. 112438-39
December 12, 1995

Subject: Forum Shopping in relation to Certiorari

Ponente: Kapunan, J

Facts

Consortium and PCIB filed separate motions for reconsideration for an order that was
previously denied. Consortium appealed to the Court of Appeals while PCIB separately filed
to the same court a petition for certiorari for the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction, likewise assailing the very same orders.

The Court of Appeals dismissed PCIB’s petition for certiorari on the grounds that PCIB
violated the rule against forum-shopping and that no grave abuse of discretion was
committed by the Trial court issuing the assailed orders. PCIB raises the matter before the
Supreme Court.

Issues
 1. Is PCIB guilty of forum shopping?

Ruling

1. Yes. The Court finds PCIB to have committed forum shopping through their acts of filing an
appeal similar but separate to the appeal filed by Consortium. According to the Court, its
action of separately instituting a petition for certiorari from the Consortium which filed an
appeal before the Court of Appeals, on which both are essentially with the same cause of
action.

Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is not difficult to understand. Certiorari is available only
if there is no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Hence, in instituting a separate petition for certiorari, PCIB has deliberately resorted to
forum-shopping.

-END-

BENECO vs. Atty. Flores

A.C. No. 40558
March 12, 1998

Subject: Forum Shopping and Speedy Administration of Justice

Ponente: Panganiban, J

Facts

Respondent, as new counsel for a losing litigant in a case decided before the Supreme Court,
filed an injunction against losing board members and litigant on the same case praying for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order for the clerk of court and Ex-officio city sheriff
to cease and desist from enforcing the execution of the judgment. Complainant finds the
action as an unprocedural maneuver to frustrate the execution of the decision of the
Supreme Court and gross ignorance of the law. Said action was dismissed by the RTC.

Respondent once again filed for separate but similar actions against parties of the decided
case with additional parties for the declaration of properties as family home in order for it to
be exempt from levy and execution. The complainant further alleges that respondent's
claim for damages against the defendant Sheriff is another improper and unprocedural
maneuver which is likewise a violation of respondent's oath not to sue on groundless suit
since the said Sheriff was merely enforcing a writ of execution as part of his job.

Issues

1. Did the respondent lawyer commit forum shopping?

2. Did the respondent commit a violation to the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling

1. Yes. The Court finds the respondent lawyer to have committed forum shopping in his act
of filing subsequent actions constituting the same cause of action before another court
involving the same but with additional parties. Said suits declaring subject property that
is subject to levy and execution were frivolous and unnecessary. The Court held that said
 actions were clearly asking for reliefs identical to the prayer previously dismissed by
another branch of the RTC. IN effect, the respondent acts to forestall the execution of a
final judgment of the decision by the Supreme Court.

2. Yes. According to the Court, the respondent failed in his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. Further, The Code also enjoins him from unduly
delaying a case by impeding the execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.
In line with the case of Millare vs.Montero and Garcia vs. Francisco, the Court ruled that
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

-END-

Austria vs. Masaquel

G.R. No. L-22536
August 31, 1967

Subject: Association of a Judge to his/her former associates in relation to inhibition

Ponente: Jaldivar, J.

Facts

Petitioner was declared in contempt of the respondent judge due to his act of directing his
counsel to meet the Judge in his chambers for the latter to inhibit on the ground that the
counsel for the adverse party on a case which the respondent judge was the presiding
officer was his former associate. Respondent Judge found the action by the petitioner to be
offensive, insulting and a reflection on the integrity and honesty of the respondent Judge. In
response, petitioner raised this matter before the Court.

Issues

1. Was the act of petitioner’s counsel to meet the Judge in his chambers
contemptuous?
2. Did the respondent Judge correctly held in contempt the Petitioner?

Ruling

1. Yes. According to the Court, said conduct cannot be considered as an act of contempt of
court. The Supreme Court believes that the circumstances that led respondent Judge to
declare petitioner in direcet contempt of court do not indicate any deliberate design on the
part of petitioner to disrespect respondent Judge or to cast aspersion against his integrity as
a Judge

2. No. The Supreme Court agrees with the Judge that association with former associates is
not one of the grounds for inhibition in a case. However, the Court finds the conduct of the
Judge to be improper as the Petitioner had a valid ground in requesting for the inhibition of
the respondent Judge. According to the Court, petitioner was validly impelled by a justifiable
apprehension which can occur in the mind of alitigant who sees what seems to be an
advantage on the part of his adversary. As such, the conduct of the petitioner in requesting
the Judge to inhibit in the case was valid.
 -END-

Gallo vs. Cordero

A.M. No. MTJ-95-1035
June 21, 1995

Subject: Meeting a party of the case without the presence of the adverse party.
Ponente: Mendoza, J.

Facts

Respondent Judge is the presiding judge over a case of violation of PD No. 772. Upon
proceedings of the case, Respondent Judge issued a subpoena to the complainant requiring
him to testify regarding his ownership of the land which the accused are allegedly illegally
occupying. Complainant asked for the arrest of the four accused but was not heeded by the
Judge as he finds no offense under PD NO. 772. Later on, complainant founded through his
son upon delivery of a letter written by him that the Judge was conversing with the four (4)
accused without his presence as the petitioner.

Issues

1. Did the Judge, through his acts of conversing with the four accused in the criminal
case, committed a violation

Ruling

1. Yes. According to the Court, Respondent Judge opened himself to charges of partiality
and bias by meeting privately with the four accused even on his defense that he was merely
informing them of their constitutional right to a counsel de officio. Whatever his purpose, it
was improper for the Judge to meet them without the presence of the complainant.

As such, the Court finds the Respondent Judge acted with gross ignorance of law and
procedure but also failed to live up to Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.

-END-