VICENTE MUÑOZ, petitioner,

vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents, DELIA T. SUTTON,respondent.
Topic:
Rule 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquotes 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 law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that
which has not been proved.
Facts:
1. Delia Sutton, a member of the Philippine bar, was the defense lawyer in
the case Vicente Muñoz vs PP and CA. She was also connected to Salonga,
Ordoñez, Yap, Parlade, and Associates law firm.

2. Supreme Court found out that the defense submitted an unbelievable

version of the case, attributing to the CA that its decision was made upon
facts different from what actually transpired.

Defense Theory: Muñoz’s boat was rammed out by the complainant.

Truth: Muñoz’s boat hit the left frontal outrigger of the complainant’s boat
where the complainant was seated, thereby hitting him on the back and
causing his death.
Muñoz’s motorboat had suffered very little damage which would have been
considerable had it been rammed by the offended party’s boat.

3. The Court resolved to deny the petition upon the ground that it is mainly
factual and for lack of merit. Where the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals [are conflicting], the same [are not binding] on the Supreme Court.
(Cesica v. Villaseca, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30, 1957)

4. SC set a hearing requiring all lawyers-partners in the firm to be present.

Sutton appeared. While her demeanor was respectful, it was obvious that
she was far from contrite.

5. Sutton was subjected to intensive questioning by several members of the

Court, yet she was not budged from such an untenable position. It was as if
she was unconcerned, oblivious of the unfavorable reaction to which her
evasive answers gave rise.

6. Atty Sedfrey Ordoñez (law firm partner) expressly acknowledged that

what happened in the petition for certiorari prepared by Sutton did
misrepresent what is set forth in the CA decision and was reprehensible. He
was humble enough to make the necessary expression of regret.

7. Delia Sutton and Atty. Ordoñez filed a ”Joint Apology to the Supreme
Court,” seeking to make amends.

Issue:
Whether or not Sutton must be held accountable in connect to a duty she
owes to the Tribunal as a counsel.

Decision:
YES, she must be held accountable.
1. While expressing regret and offering apology, there was lacking that
frank admission that what was done by her should not be characterized
merely as "errors" consisting as they do of "inaccurate statements." If there
were a greater sincerity on her part, the offense should have been
acknowledged as the submission of deliberate misstatements.

2. As set forth in the applicable Canon of Legal Ethics: "Nothing operates

more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice against lawyers as a
class, and to deprive the profession of that full measure of public esteem
and confidence which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties than does
the false claim, often set up by the unscrupulous in defense of questionable
transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him
to succeed in winning his client's cause." What is more, the obligation to the
the bench, especially to this Court, for candor and honesty takes precedence. It
is by virtue of such considerations that punishment that must fit the offense
has to be meted out to respondent Delia T. Sutton.
3. WHEREFORE, respondent Delia T. Sutton is severely censured.
G.R. No. L
-
25291 January 30, 1971
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
VS.
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD
FACTS:
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., et. al.(hereinafter referred to as the Unions), while
still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate
CBAs with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
Companies).
The Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant corporate secretary
and legal assistant in their Legal Department.
Enaje was hired as personnel manager of the Companies, and was likewise made
chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining with
the Unions.
Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies; negotiations were conducted on
the Union’s proposals, but these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union
shop, as a result of which the Unions filed a notice of strike for “deadlock on
collective bargaining.”
The issue was dropped subsequently.
But, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory result
due to a deadlock on the matter of salary increases.From the date the strike was called
on May 21, 1958, until it was called off on May 31,1958,some management men tried to
break thru the Unions’ picket lines succeeded in penetrating the picket lines in front of
the Insular Life Building,thus causing injuries to the picketers and also to the strike -
breakers due to the Resistance offered by some picketers.
Alleging that some non-strikers were injured,the Companies then filed criminal charges
against the strikers with the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila.Another letter was sent by
the company to the individual strikers telling them to report back to office on or
before June 2, 1958 or else the company will hire people to replace them in their
positions.
However,before readmitting the strikers, the Companies required them not only to
secure clearances from the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila but also to be screened by a
management committee among the members of which were Enaje and Garcia.
Subsequently, when practically all the strikers had secured clearances from the fiscal’s
office, the Companies readmitted only some but adamantly refused readmission to
34 officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the strike, on the
ground that they committed “acts inimical to the interest of the respondents,” without
however stating the specific acts allegedly committed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of Industrial
Relations be cited in contempt for not quoting the Supreme Court’s decision properly

HELD:
NO.
Hereunder stated is the copy of the decision made by Judge Arsenio Martinez:
For it is settled that not even the acquittal of an employee of the criminal charge against
him is a bar to the employer's right to impose discipline on its employees, should the act
upon which the criminal charged was based constitute nevertheless an activity
inimical to the employer's interest
...
The act of the employees now under consideration may be considered as a misconduct
which is a just cause for dismissal

Hereunder stated is the copy of the Supreme Court’s decision where Judge Martinez
copied his judgment:
For it must be remembered that not even the acquittal of an employee, of the
criminal charges against him, is a bar to the employer's right to impose discipline on its
employees, should the act upon which the criminal charges was based constitute
nevertheless an activity inimical to the employer's interest
.
It is plain to the naked eye that the 60 underscored words of the paragraph
quoted by the respondent Judge do not appear in the pertinent paragraph of this
Court's decision inMoreover, the first underscored sentence in the quoted
paragraph starts with"For it is settled..."whereas it reads, "For it must be
remembered ...," in this Court's decision. Finally, the second and last underlined
sentence in the quoted paragraph of the respondent Judge's decision, appears not in
the same paragraph of this Court's decision where the other sentence is, but in the
immediately succeeding paragraph.This apparent error, however, does not seem to
warrant an indictment for contempt against the respondent Judge. We are inclined to
believe that the misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate
attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to Mislead. Anyway, the import of
the underscored sentences of the quotation in the respondent Judge's decision is
substantially the same as, and faithfully reflects, the particular ruling in this
Court's decision.In citing this Court's decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty
of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word for word and
punctuation mark for punctuation mark. It is because ever present is the danger
that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this Court may
lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the
public who may thereby be misled.

Wicker vs. Arcangel 252 SCRA 444

De Leon vs. Torres 99 Phil 463

FACTS:

In 1953, Atty. Jose Torres sent a telegram to Judge Luis De Leon threatening him that
if the judge won’t lift his order of arrest, he shall file criminal, civil and administrative
charges against him. Judge De Leon then issued a show cause order requiring Atty.
Torres to explain why he should not be disciplined. Torres did not appear but instead
he evaded arrest and went to Manila. Judge De Leon then decreed an order
suspending Torres from the practice of law until otherwise ruled upon by the
Supreme Court. Notwithstanding this order, Torres still practiced law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Torres is proper.

HELD:
No. He openly defied a lawful order of the court. It must be impressed upon all
lawyers that court orders, even though erroneous, must be respected, especially by
the bar or the lawyers who are themselves officers of the courts.
Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be
respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to
the judicial branch of the Government. Respect must be had not because of the
incumbents to the positions, but because of the authority that vests in them.
Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the Government to
which they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system.
Torres was suspended for three months.
G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988
ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR vs. RAUL M. GONZALEZ,
FACTS:

The following are the subjects of this Resolution filed by the Petitioner : a Motion, dated
9 February 1988, to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar against
public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez, in
connection with G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578. and a Resolution of this
Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. Raul Gonzalez to show cause why
he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for
making certain public statements. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent
Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal
Case No. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and (2) issuing certain allegedly
contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578.
In respect of the latter, petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news article
which appeared in the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe."

ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech
towards the Court?

RULING:
No.
The Court begins by referring to the authority to discipline officers of the court and
members of the Bar. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's
constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as
well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Moreover, the Supreme Court has
inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the
conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all other persons
connected in any manner with a case before the Court.
Only slightly (if at all) less important is the public interest in the capacity of the Court to
effectively prevent and control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers who are,
first and foremost, indispensable participants in the task of rendering justice to every
man. Some courts have held, persuasively it appears to us, that a lawyer's right of free
expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman.

While the Court may allow criticism it has In Re: Almacen held: Intemperate and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that
subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. The lawyer's duty to render respectful
subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in
the assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers, even those gifted with superior intellect, are
enjoined to rein up their tempers.