G.R. No.

111474 August 22, 1994

FIVE J TAXI and/or JUAN S. ARMAMENTO, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINGO MALDIGAN and GILBERTO SABSALON

FACTS:

Domingo and Gilberto were taxi drivers of Five J Taxi who were required to pay a daily boundary plus P15.00
as a deposit for any deficiency in their boundary for every working day. They eventually stopped showing
up for work until Five J found out that they were working for other operators. They were both terminated
by Five J. Private respondents filed a complaint with the manila Arbitration Office of the National Labor
Relations Commission charging petitioners with illegal dismissal and illegal deductions.

LA: Dismissed petition and held that it took 2 years to for them to file the same and such unreasonable
delay was not consistent with the natural reaction of a person who claimed to be unjustly treated o The
filing of the case was then interpreted as a mere
afterthought
NLRC: concurred, with the observation that the private respondents failed to controvert the evidence
showing that Domingo was employed by Mine of Gold from February 10, 1987 to December 10, 1990 and
that Gilberto abandoned his taxicab on September 1, 1990 and that they voluntarily left their jobs for
similar employment with other operators
o It affirmed the ruling of the LA that their services were
not illegally terminated
Petitioner’s MR denied by the NLRC ordering petitioners to pay private respondents Domingo and Gilberto
their accumulated deposits and car wash payments plus interest at the legal rate from the date of
promulgation of judgment to the date of actual payment and 10% of the total amount as and for
attorney’s fees
Petitioners Five J Taxi and Juan S. Armamento filed a special civil action for certiorari to annul the
decision of NLRC

IssuE: Whether or not the deductions were illegal

RULING: yes

Petition DENIED Judgment AFFIRMED

• Article 114 of the Labor Code provides:

o No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be made for
the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the
employer, except when the employer is engaged in such trades, occupations or business where
the practice of making deposits is a recognized one, or is necessary or desirable as determined
by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate rules and regulations
• The said article provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools, materials or
equipments supplied by the employer
• Clearly, the same does not apply to or permit deposits to defray any deficiency which the taxi driver
may incur in the remittance of his boundary
• Respondent NLRC held that P15.00 daily deposits made by respondents to defray any shortage in their
boundary is covered by the general prohibition in Article 114 of the LC and that there is no showing
that the Secretary of Labor has recognized the same as “practice” in the taxi industry
• The deposits made were illegal and the respondents must be refunded therefor

However, on the matter of the car wash payments, the LA had this to say in his decision: o
"Anent the issue of illegal deductions, there is no
dispute that as a matter of practice in the taxi industry, after a tour of duty, it is incumbent upon the
driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean condition when he took it out, and as claimed
by the respondents (petitioners in the present case), complainant(s) (private respondents herein) were
made to shoulder the expenses for washing, the amount doled out was paid directly to the person who
washed the unit, thus we find nothing illegal in this practice, much more (sic) to consider the amount
paid by the driver as illegal deduction in the context of the law."
• Consequently, private respondents are not entitled to the refund of the P20.00 car wash payments
they made.
 A.C. No. 2837 October 7, 1994
ESTEBAN M. LIBIT, complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. EDELSON G. OLIVA and FLORANDO A. UMALI, respondent
 
Facts:

In civil Case No. 84-24144 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled "Pedro Cutingting,
plaintiff versus Alfredo Tan, defendant", the Honorable Presiding Judge Domingo Panis issued the
following order directed the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an
investigation with the end in view of determining the author of the Sheriff's Return which appears to have
been falsified and to institute such criminal action as the evidence will warrant.

After conducting the necessary investigation, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), charged
respondents falsification of Sheriffs return of Summons
of the aforesaid Civil Case thereby impending and/or obstructing the speedy administration and/or
dispensation of Justice.

Respondents in their respective answers denied having any hand in the falsification of the said sheriff's
return.

Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the resolution of the Court En Banc of April 12, 1988,
the case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In view, however, of the report of the National Bureau of Investigation to the effect that the signature
above the typewritten name Florando Umali on the last page of the complaint in said civil case is not
his signature, complainant, through counsel, agreed to the dismissal of the case with respect to Atty.
Umali.

With respect to Atty. Edelson G. Oliva, the IBP submitted a report and recommendation: That there are
ample evidence extant in the records to prove that Atty. Oliva has something to do with the falsification
of the Sheriff's Return on the Summons in said Civil Case.

Issue:
W/N respondent violated Code of Ethics

RULING:
Yes.
After the careful review of the record of the case and the report and recommendation of the IBP,
the Court finds that respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant the
exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers. The facts, as supported by the evidence, obtaining in this
case indubitably reveal respondent's failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics. A lawyer's responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a
course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.

In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a lawyer that
he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:

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 misleAd by any artifice.

The Supreme Court resolved to impose upon Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty of
DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is
ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

The case is ordered dismissed as against Atty. Florando Umali.

VICENTE SOTTO             January 21, 1949

In re VICENTE SOTTO, for contempt of court

 Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt in connection with his written statement of the Supreme Court's decision
in the matter of Angel Parazo's case, which was published in Manila Times and in
other newspapers in the locality.

Sotto was given ten days more besides the five originally given him to file his
answer, and although his answer was filed after the expiration of the period of time
given him the said answer was admitted. He does not deny the authenticity of the
statement as it has been published. He however, contends that under section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, which confers upon this Supreme Court the power to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, the Supreme Court
has has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and it can only
impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be promulgated by
Congress with the approval of the Chief Executive. He also alleges in his answer
that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the
respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no
intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable members of this high
Tribunal, who, in his opinion, erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not
attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or integrity of any one.”

Issue: Whether or not Sotto is guilty of contempt.

HELD:

The Court finds that the respondent Sotto knowingly published false imputations
against its members. He accused them of such depravity as to have committed
"blunders and injustices deliberately." He has maliciously branded them to be
incompetent, narrow-minded, perpetrators of evil, "a constant peril to liberty and
democracy," to be the opposite of those who were the honor and glory of the
Philippines judiciary, to be needing a lesson in law, to be rendering an intolerable
sentence, to be needing replacement by better qualified justices.

Respondent has not presented any evidence or offered any to support his slanderous
imputations, and no single word can be found in his answer showing that he ever
believed that the imputations are based on fact.

It is also well settled that an attorney as an officer of the court is under special
obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts, he may be
removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant
misconduct.
 A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016

AVIDA LAND CORPORATION (FORMERLY LAGUNA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS,

INC.), Complainant,

Vs.

ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO, Respondent.

FACT:

Complainant is a Philippine corporation engaged in the development and sale of subdivision houses and lots.
Respondent was counsel for Rodman Construction & Development Corporation (Rodman).
Complainant entered into a Contract to Sell with Rodman, under which the latter was to acquire from the
former a subdivision house and lot in Santa Rosa, Laguna through bank financing..
After settling the downpayment, Rodman took possession of the property. However, the respondent made
partial payments in which the complainant disputed.
Consequently, complainant rescinded the Contract to Sell by notarial act, and demanded that Rodman
vacate the subject property.
Soon after, Rodman filed a Complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking
the nullification of the rescission of the Contract to Sell..
Subsequently, the decision of HLURB Board modified the arbiter's ruling, directing Rodman "to immediately
pay its outstanding balance failing in which respondent shall have the right to rescind the contract
subject to a refund of all the sums paid by complainant less deductions as may be stipulated in the
contract and less monthly compensation for the use of the premises at the rate of 1% of the contract
price per month."
The parties attempted to arrive at a settlement on the judgment, but their efforts were in vain.
However, thereafter, respondent's act of filing numerous and various pleadings caused the delay in the
execution of the final judgment which constitutes professional misconduct on the part of the respondent.
Thus, on September 22, 2009, a resolution put an end to the long-drawn-out dispute, as respondent did not
file any more pleadings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.

RULING:

Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the path towards its resolution became long,
tedious, and frustrating because of the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the actual execution of
the judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already passed upon even after being
enjoined not to do so and made unfounded accusations of bias or procedural defects. These acts manifest
his propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal and abuse court processes, to the detriment of the
administration of justice.
As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client and is expected to serve the latter
with competence and diligence. As such, respondent is entitled to employ every honorable means to
defend the cause of his client and secure what is due the latter.
However, professional rules impose limits and hedge with any necessary restrictions and qualifications.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required to exert every effort and consider it
their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Code also obliges lawyers to
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of their client.
Thus, the court had meted out the penalty of one to two years' suspension in cases involving multiple
violations of professional conduct that have caused unjust delays in the administration of justice. The IBP
Guidelines similarly provide that "suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that he is violating a
court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or
potential interference with a legal proceeding”.
Respondent, therefore, should not receive a mere reprimand and should be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year.
Atty. Argosino is found guilty of violating Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and the Lawyer's Oath, for which he is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon the
finality of this Resolution. He is reprimanded or censured sternly warned that a repetition of a similar
behavior in the future shall merit a harsher penalty.