This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
“A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.” A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. A lawyer’s conduct before the court should be characterized by candor and fairness. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act with complete candor and honesty before the courts. Hence, the burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. CLARITA J. SAMALA vs. ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA, A.C. No. 5439, January 22, 2007
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that 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. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its decision dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba. A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. As such, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate. Accordingly, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia guilty of misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution. 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. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients." He should bear in0 mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. (Young v. Batuegas, A.C. 5379, May 2003) CONRADO QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009
The respondent took advantage of his position and the trust reposed in him by his clients (who are all squatters) to convince them to support, through their affidavits, his false claims on what allegedly transpired in the June 28, 2002 hearing. For these acts, we find the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the lawyer’s duty to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the court. This provision states: CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT
Anastacio Revilla." The respondent failed to remember that his duty as an officer of the court makes him an indispensable participant in the administration of justice. Q-98-35326. nor consent to the doing of any in Court. MANUEL N. Rudegelio D. Rule 19. which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover. 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and hold that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.01. nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice. In the present case.02 and 12. Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the Motion for Intervention and Answer in Intervention in Civil Case No. 2004 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is set aside and the instant administrative case filed against Atty. He denies the allegations of complainant and contends that he is not guilty of forum shopping. the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. His duty as a lawyer obligates him not to conceal the truth from the court. fairly and truthfully in his work. Canon 8. In case of conflict. Herein complainant. No. Rules 12. and that he is expected to act candidly. Rule 7.03. does not dispute respondent’s allegation that the latter and his client attached to their Answer in Intervention a copy of their complaint in Civil Case No. his duties to his client yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court Wherefore. complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the standards of honesty as provided for by the Code of Professional Responsibility which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against him.C. Q-98-35444. Resolution No.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood. Camacho for knowingly committing forum-shopping. Canon 12. August 31. 2004 Rudecon Management Corporation and Atty. the first paragraph of the said Answer in Intervention shows that respondent and his client called the trial court’s attention with respect to the pendency of Civil Case No. 6403. Respondent filed his Answer to the instant complaint. Likewise. Indeed. RUDEGELIO D. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Rule 10. or to mislead the court in any manner. Q-98-35326 in Branch 78. Q-98-35444. Manuel N. Q-9835444 do not involve the same issues and reliefs prayed for and that he did not resort to the filing of both actions in order to increase the chances of his client obtaining a favorable decision. XVI-2004-43 dated February 27. the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer "never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.04. Wherefore. Jr. 04-94 in relation to the provisions of Section 5.01 and 10. TACORDA vs. In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers. no matter how demanding his duties to his clients may be. Camacho is dismissed for lack of merit. The court agree with respondent that there was no intention on his part to mislead the court by concealing the pendency of Civil Case No. Canon 10. Manuel N. Rules 10. RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and ATTY. A. an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof. ATTY. and Sections 20(d). Tacorda filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a verified complaint for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law against Atty. Q-98-35326 and the Complaint filed with Branch 79 in Civil Case No. in violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath. CAMACHO. . He claims that the Answer in Intervention filed with Branch 78 in Civil Case No.
(Emphasis supplied) It cannot be denied that respondent’s dishonesty did not only affect the image of the judiciary. deliberately concealed the fact that he had pending administrative charges against him. otherwise. Thus: SEC. The standard of integrity imposed on them is – and should be – higher than that of the average person for it is their integrity that gives them the right to judge." Respondent’s misconduct likewise constituted a contravention of Section 27.M. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. complainant Olga M. the moral fitness of a judge also reflects his moral fitness as a lawyer. bar and students of the law. Branch 30. Caballero of the Regional Trial Court. Branch 30. malpractice. those counted within its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also accord continuing fidelity to them. Wherefore. as far as the general public is concerned. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import. Caballero should not have been appointed to the judiciary for lack of the constitutional qualifications of proven competence. According to the complainant. they should set a good example to the bench. integrity. than the possession of legal learning. respondent’s dishonest act was against the lawyer’s oath to "do no falsehood. respondent. probity and independence2. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. officials and personnel necessitates the imposition of a rigid set of rules of conduct on judges. which strictly enjoins a lawyer from committing acts of deceit. 270. No. guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document. In this particular case. he may be suspended or disbarred. Since membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in the bench. Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court is extraordinarily strict with judges because. grounds therefor. it also put his moral character in serious doubt and rendered him unfit to continue in the practice of law. nor consent to the doing of any in court. and for violating the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which disqualifies from nomination any applicant for judgeship with a pending administrative case. CABALLERO. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice. or other gross misconduct in such office. being the visible representation of the law. Samson alleged that respondent Judge Virgilio G. A. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates his oath as a lawyer. we find respondent Judge Virgilio G. or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. In her complaint. August 5. JUDGE VIRGILIO G. Nueva Ecija. OLGA M. The first step towards the successful implementation of the Court’s relentless drive to purge the judiciary of morally unfit members. RTJ-08-2138. Cabanatuan City. 2009 This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of a public document against respondent Judge Virgilio G. or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals. Cabanatuan City. during his JBC interviews. grossly immoral conduct. constitutes malpractice. Caballero. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. He is ordered . SAMSON vs.
In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an erring lawyer. . and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. and good faith to the court. which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent. Being married to complainant’s sister. Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession. it should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar. the respondent is the brother-in-law of complainant. thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of legal and judicial ethics. he knew of his wife’s siblings. the respondent denies the allegations of the complaint and asserts that he did not take advantage of his profession to deprive any of the co-heirs of his wife of the estate left by his parentsin-law." This Rule was clearly and openly violated by the respondent when he permitted Marcelina to falsely testify that she had no siblings aside from Felicisima and when he offered such testimony in the petition for reconstitution of the title involving Lot 1605. fairness. Rolando S. including government-owned or controlled corporations.01 and 10. 2004 Complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. In his Comment. In fact. No. The respondent must have forgotten that as an attorney he is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of justice. with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges. For this reason.dismissed from the service. A. Respondent is likewise disbarred for violation of Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1. The records show that Felicisima and Miriam stated in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11 November 1986 that they are the children of Julita Reynante and thus adjudicated only between them Lot No. and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. a lawyer owes candor. he is an instrument to advance its cause. Torres with presentation of false testimony. honorable. April 14. he declared that the complainant stayed with them while she was in the Philippines. Like the court itself. ATTY. any act on his part that obstructs and impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him. and failure to advise against. the respondent presented that document to the Register of Deeds of General Trias. ISIDRA TING-DUMALI vs. While the assessment of what sanction may be imposed is primarily addressed to our sound discretion. to effect the transfer of the title of the lot in question in the name of his wife and his sister-in-law Miriam. we take into account the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings. He shall "not do any falsehood. if any. ROLANDO S. 5161. except accrued leave credits. with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Yet. 1586 to the exclusion of their other siblings. participation in. nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Cavite. nor consent to the doing of any in court. the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement. nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice. consent to. the sanction should neither be arbitrary or despotic. They constitute gross misconduct for which he may be disbarred or suspended pursuant to Section 27. There was concealment of the fact that there were other compulsory heirs to the estate of the deceased. Rather. TORRES.C. Under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Significantly.
respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the said document on January 4. The notarial acknowledgement of respondent declared that Benitez "appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act. ATTY. He is thus ordered disbarred from the practice of law. Without the fraudulent SPA. with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud.14 Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was superfluous and unnecessary. Sicat. in the amount of P3. particularly the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by a one Juanito C. and prejudiced no one. the erring parties in the construction project could not have encashed the check amounting to P3. Rolando S. deceit and falsehood in his dealings. A public office is a public trust. JR. effective immediately. As the Municipal Administrator of Cainta. Verily. 2005 Complainant Arturo L.000. 5864. meaningless and routinary act. we find respondent Atty. Benitez.13 It converts a private document into a public instrument.000 and could not have foisted on the public a spurious contract ― all to the extreme prejudice of the very Municipality of which he was the Administrator. 2001 when in fact the latter had already died on October 25. ARIOLA. purportedly bearing the signature of Benitez." Clearly.000. The agent resorted to misrepresentation.000. In view of all the foregoing. thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Rizal. 2000. The first and partial payment. misrepresentation. we find that respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the severance of his privilege to practice law for life. A. x x x . exonerate him of accountability. The records show that Benitez died on October 25. ARTURO L. making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. SICAT vs. According to complainant. the Municipal Administrator of Cainta. respondent notarized the SPA. 2001 or more than two months after the latter's death. manufacture or fabrication of fictitious document. and we therefore adopt the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner. Benitez & Architects Technical Management for the consultancy services in the conduct of Detailed Feasibility Study and Detailed Engineering Design of the Proposed Construction of Cainta Municipal Medium Rise Low Cost Housing.700. No. on January 4. According to the COA Special Task Force: Almost all acts of falsification of public documents as enumerated in Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code were evident in the transactions of the Municipality of Cainta with J. Ariola. However. All these were tainted with deceit perpetrated against the government resulting to undue injury. His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.00 was made in the absence of the required outputs.700. given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case. charged respondent Atty. Notarization is not an empty.C. as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2000. respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement. April 15. and counterfeiting or imitating signature for the purpose of creating a fraudulent contract. GREGORIO E. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Rizal. he should have been aware of his great responsibility not only as a notary public but as a public officer as well.Thus. and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. untruthful narration of facts. in the contract amount of P11.C. We will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. Gregorio E.. Respondent should not have caused disservice to his constituents by consciously performing an act that would deceive them and the Municipality of Cainta.
2007 Complainant Atty. respondent Atty. No. Garcia charged respondent Atty. WILFREDO T. However. Later he explained in his memorandum that his main concern was "to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms without going to trial" and insisted that there was no proof of his having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath. GARCIA vs. his "alleged acts of falsity") had no effect on the continuance of the case and therefore caused no actual prejudice to complainant. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the case from the very beginning (i. By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits. Wherefore. by being less than candid about whom he was representing. is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. MALIGAY vs. He pointed out. Wilfredo T. LOPEZ. Ariola. Lopez is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10. respondent were guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will "do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. Rules 8. that his false statement (or. who took up the larger part of two hearings to present evidence and explain his side. August 28. Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento. as he put it. DORONILLA.C. and misrepresentation. Doronilla which charged him with "misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting [in] obstruction of justice". Upon her death. in addition. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. respondent Atty." Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. He should have been more careful about his actuation since the court was relying on him in its task of ascertaining the truth. he violated the lawyer's . he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. Doronilla. the original applicant. A.02 and 10. in fact. ATTY. It is true that without the formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of record. the attorney-client relationship was terminated. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the "compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento" when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of them.Wherefore. admitted several times that there was. no such agreement. A. 6422.. and brought to the immediate attention of the Ombudsman. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. RENATO M. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered in the records of respondent.C. Atty. Complainant swore before the investigating commissioner that he had never entered into any agreement to withdraw his lawsuits. Beniamino A. 6198. Even assuming that it was not a calculated deception. September 15. Atty. BENIAMINO A. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. 2006 Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Jr. Gregorio E. ANTONIO G. complainant was retained as counsel by Gina Jarviña and Alfredo Ku. We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Nevertheless. respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record. JR. Beniamino A.e.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Not only that. No.. amounting to perjury and prayed that respondent be suspended or disbarred. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and officer of the court. ATTY.
Antonio G. IRENEO AREDONIA. Atty. Doronilla's suspension from the government military service. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court) means only suspension from the practice of law. By then. Doronilla. Therefore. to file the appellant’s brief before the CA. Doronilla's first offense. Atty. needs time away from the practice of law to recognize his error and to purge himself of the misbegotten notion that an effort to compromise justifies the sacrifice of truthfulness in court. 4955.oath to "do no falsehood. September 12. however personally embarrassing the cause for the dismissal might have been. He failed. relied upon and reposed his trust and confidence on the latter. Ireneo Aredonia. At any rate. Doronilla's suspension.C. without reason. JR. his unrepentant attitude throughout the conduct of this administrative case tells us that a mere slap on the wrist is definitely not enough. suspension from employment as a military legal officer may well follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not be reason for us to impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. Doronilla. Jr." The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision (Section 27. And to add insult to injury. lawyers. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct shall be dealt with more severely. Of course. Doronilla's liability as a member of the legal profession. Second. . No. Once they agree to take up the cause of a client. we are not inclined to adopt the IBP's recommendation on the duration of Atty. Atty. all remedies had been lost. 2011 A complaint for disbarment with a prayer for damages was instituted by Antonio Conlu (Antonio) against Atty. if not to secure a favorable judgment. in short. nor consent to the doing of any in court. is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two monthes. As mentioned earlier. as a penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyer's oath. since this is Atty. to do whatsoever was legally necessary to protect Antonio’s interest. the only purpose of this administrative case is to determine Atty. He neglected. Ireneo had doubtless been languid in the performance of his duty as Antonio’s counsel. as his counsel. ATTY." of which Canon 10 and Rule 10. (Atty. we disagree with the IBP's recommendation for Atty. by choosing Atty. we give him credit for exhibiting enough candor to admit. it seems. the falsity of the statement he had made in Judge Daway's courtroom. We would be going beyond the purpose of this proceeding were we to do so. the absence of material damage to complainant may also be considered as a mitigating circumstance. we shall treat the IBP's recommendation as one for suspension from the practice of law. And finally. he is entitled to some measure of forbearance. His act infringed on every lawyer's duty to "never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. After all. Nonetheless. owe fidelity to such cause and should always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on them.01 are but restatements. Ireneo) on grounds of gross negligence and dereliction of sworn duty. Antonio. Ireneo to represent him. his suspension from employment in the Judge Advocate General's Service. Ireneo appeared not to have taken any effort to personally apprise Antonio of the dismissal of the appeal. during the investigation. A. ANTONIO CONLU vs. Antonio came to know about the outcome of his appeal only after his wife took the trouble of verifying the case status when she came to Manila. For this reason. it would be improper for us to order. Thus. First.. to exert his utmost ability and to give his full commitment to maintain and defend Antonio’s right. regardless of the importance of the subject matter litigated or financial arrangements agreed upon. Jr. not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. Atty. Wherefore. We need to consider a few circumstances that mitigate his liability somewhat.
He basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace of the proceedings in view of his workload. And when ordered to give an explanation through a show-cause directive for not complying. Macias. ATTY. What Atty. on several occasions insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest. filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. delay the resolution of the instant case. Atty. and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. but also properly representing the client in court. But the required comment never came. Selda. Branch 28. This cannot be tolerated. Jr. in the process. HON. Liloy. attending scheduled hearings. so to speak. This duty includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care and giving the client sound legal advice. What is clear to the Court by now is that Ireneo was determined all along not to submit a comment and. Ireneo has effectively trifled with the Court’s processes. members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect. his former client and private protestee in subject election protest case. 6442. At the minimum. complainant granted the Motion and ordered respondent relieved of all his responsibilities as counsel for private protestee. and withdrawal from the case was his best recourse. He stated that he was convinced that chaos would result if his client was unseated. After requesting and securing no less than three (3) extensions of time to file his comment. October 21. Alanixon A. Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. He swore that he only filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the case by complainant. Ireneo’s defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of its resolution to file his comment on the basic complaint. preparing and filing required pleadings. He is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. No. but without the intention to so submit. We cannot write finis to this case without delving into and addressing Atty. moved for the inhibition of complainant. he asked for and was granted a 30-day extension. It cannot be allowed to go unpunished. with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. On the basis of respondent’s affidavit. 2004 Judge Mariano S. Ireneo Aredonia. MARIANO S. When the Court eventually directed the NBI to arrest him. prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch. respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private protestee. attempting to mislead the appellate court. In light of these representations. communication lines. Ireneo can neither defeat this Court’s jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his whereabouts Wherefore. is declared guilty of inexcusable negligence. A. Complainant granted the motion for his inhibition . Lim. he simply closed. MACIAS vs. Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court. if not its liberality. courtesy and such other becoming conduct so essential in the promotion of orderly. ALANIXON A. However. Zamboanga del Norte. impartial and speedy justice. The lawyer should not be sitting idly by and leave the rights of the client in a state of uncertainty. he just left his last known address and could not be located. if the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice is to be maintained.C. misuse of Court processes. and willful disobedience to lawful orders of the Court. SELDA. And to be sure. By asking several extensions of time to submit one. The Court’s patience has been tested to the limit by what in hindsight amounts to a lawyer’s impudence and disrespectful bent. who.It must be remembered that a retained counsel is expected to serve the client with competence and diligence. respondent Atty. Ireneo has done was the exact opposite.
Deploring the act of respondent as "serious deceit. When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T. under oath. But. eventually this Court set aside complainant’s inhibition after finding no strong and valid reason therefor. the February 27. For indeed. rendered a decision in favor of the complainant. no law can save us as a society. Agravante. malpractice. 2004 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. No. March 23. Agravante served as counsel for The Rogemson Co. gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter violation of the lawyer’s oath. he acknowledged." These particular fundamental principles are reflected in the Code of Professional. (hereinafter. Hence. Labor Arbiter Newton R. The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. Agravante. 02-921 is affirmed with the modification that respondent Atty.. CHENG vs. complainants wrote Atty. Thus. the legal profession and the public. He is further sternly warned that a repetition of a similar offense will call for a more severe consequence. his misrepresentation. this obligation to the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence. A copy of said decision was received by respondent’s law office on September 8. 1998. then. 1998 Thereafter. XI in Davao City by its former employee. 6183.C. In fact. Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. Sancho. Alexander M. and ordered Rogemson to pay Barril separation pay and backwages. Selda is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. ATTY. He misled the court in clear violation of his oath as lawyer and failed to abide by the Code of Professional Responsibility. ALEXANDER M. "do no falsehood" and "conduct [themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their] clients. and directed him to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch. to commence upon receipt of this Decision. demanding that they be compensated for the pecuniary damages they had suffered as a result of his negligence. a certain Beaver Martin B." In view whereof. Through their new lawyers. Rogemson) in a case filed against it before the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch No. inter alia." complainant requested the IBP to investigate the matter and recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty against respondent. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent to answer. A. Alanixon A. However. Lim. The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. complainants terminated the services of Atty. All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to. the court affirms the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent. Barril. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court. AGRAVANTE.2 . He failed.if only to disabuse any doubt on his impartiality. "if respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened. EDISON G. Inc. respondent filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC only on September 22. saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this imperative which necessitates appropriate punishment. 2004 Respondent Atty.
he ought to know that his Memorandum of Appeal. He alleges that there were several markings on this particular envelope. Edison G. Cheng. the belated filing of the Memorandum of Appeal cannot in any way mitigate respondent’s liability. As a lawyer. his secretary handed to him all the correspondence addressed to him.When it appeared that Atty. 1998. especially before the courts. Agravante is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and is fined in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos . He then informed Abelgas of the result of the case and the period within which to file a Memorandum of Appeal. but he was informed that Rogemson would take care of it. 1998. nor is it mere words. 1998. He offered the services of his law office for procuring the appeal bond. having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Agravante tells a different story. This duty is expressed in general terms in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Furthermore. Alexander M. filed an affidavit-complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. 1998 in order to make it appear that his Memorandum of Appeal was filed on time. respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully and well as to protect the rights and interests of his client. and Agravante has clearly failed to live up to this duty. he alleges that he was out of town on said date and only returned to his office on September 10. although the bond documents were notarized on September 21. The instruction for Rogemson to proceed with the appeal came a full six (6) days later. General Manager of Rogemson. one of which was the date "September 10. Agravante’s insistence that it was not his place to file an appeal without express instructions from his client to do so is not persuasive. it shows ignorance on his part. In this case. drift and hollow. He could easily withdraw the appeal if his client should later decide not to pursue the same. they must first solemnly swear to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. It cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe honesty at all times. He neither admitted nor denied receiving the decision of the Labor Arbiter. instead. respondent’s filing of the Memorandum of Appeal four (4) days after the deadline proves that his efforts fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards. on the contrary. Wherefore. which provide that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. 1998. would surely be struck down for late filing. in view of the foregoing. He alleges that Rogemson furnished them with the bond only in the morning of September 22. Agravante had no intention of responding to their letter. but a sacred trust that every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. Upon arriving at the office. to which all lawyers subscribe in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice. respondent Atty. In sum. Agravante lied when he said he received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on September 10. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. including the envelope containing the Labor Arbiter’s decision. This oath. Before lawyers are admitted to the bar." and he allegedly assumed that this was the date of receipt by his office.
Respondent. RTC issued an order granting Atty. he was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to take with regard to complainant’s case when he received instead. EDGAR O. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. March 20. he offered on several occasions to withdraw as one of the defense counsel of the complainant even to the extent of offering to return his acceptance fee which the latter however refused. RUBEN ALMADRO. He is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments . complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood. also. this led him to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that were already finalized and acted upon. moreover. 2003 This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar O. Respondent through said law firm submitted an Answer to the complaint. Because of Atty. his time and attention was spent in the performance of his demanding job at the PSE as well as in the preparation of his testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with the "BW" scam. complainant thought that respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him dismissed. respondent was preoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost. while he is a counsel of complainant in the criminal case before the RTC. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer of herein complainant. actions on pending cases were held in abeyance.C. the presiding judge of the RTC retired. Perea against Atty. More than that. finally.000. No. Almadro’s motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from said date. meanwhile. a copy of the present complaint It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client. a few days before the deadline. contending that: two days after the RTC granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence. ATTY. Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent’s neglect of his duties. All the while.00). communications with the herein complainant had become rarer. as a consequence. through the law firm Sua and Alambra. then he was offered a position at the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance Division which he accepted. 5246.(P10. The trial court ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his defense. Later. the truth being that it was complainant who refused to let go of respondent as his counsel. towards the end of 1997 up to the next five months of 1998. Respondent filed three motions for extension of time to file comment. Respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 99) where he (complainant Perea) is being charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. a warrant was issued for his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail. It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that Atty. herein complainant was relying on. Respondent has not attended any of his hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Solomon Villanueva.6 it is not true that complainant pleaded with respondent to withdraw as his counsel. the lead counsel being Atty. thereafter. filed a Manifestation and Motion that respondent has not yet received a copy of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the complainant to furnish them a copy. A. Almadro’s neglect. PEREA vs. herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them. he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court. he was merely a collaborating counsel. The Court resolved to grant the said motions with a warning that no further extensions shall be granted. anent the case of herein complainant.
and other amounts totaling P1. SP No. November 18. V-000180-98. Records reveal that both Attys. Almirante (“Labor Arbiter”) in NLRC Case No. as observed by the IBP. Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how his draft disappeared.R. with a warning that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely. or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment. is not only outrageous but is contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court. the decisions and rulings of the court may lose their proper and correct meaning.of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and without any protection when years later. Sua and Alambra have filed their joint Explanation. G. COURT OF APPEALS and POTENCIANO L. Such story. not long after. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper. . or the text of a decision or authority. 20030 This is a petition for review assailing the Decision of 27 April 2000 and the Resolution of 8 August 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. as embodied in Canon 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 144412. mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed in court. backwages. Rule 10. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. Wherefore. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor. Kenton Sua and Atty. lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. Rules 18. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents. Galanida (“Galanida”). or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment. all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the necessary pleading before the trial court. In his Answer. Alan Alambra to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation in the preparation of the Answer for herein respondent is appropriate. moral and exemplary damages. to the detriment of other courts. or the text of a decision or authority. RAB VII-05-0545-94 holding that Allied Banking Corporation (“Allied Bank”) illegally dismissed Potenciano L. language or argument of opposing counsel. The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. finding respondent Atty.04 and Canon 10. he is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year and fined in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10. GALANIDA. The NLRC modified the Decision dated 23 December 1997 of Labor Arbiter Dominador A.A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper. stored in a magnetic diskette. If not faithfully or exactly quoted. he even tried to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding complainant’s case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for disbarment.33. he received summons from the trial court asking him to present evidence in his defense and. Rule 10.02 . or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. The Court of Appeals upheld the Decision of 18 September 1998 and the Resolution of 24 December 1998 of the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) in NLRC Case No. the language or the argument of opposing counsel. 51451.264.03 and 18. The NLRC awarded Galanida separation pay. Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the story of how his draft.00) Pesos.000.933. the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Refusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal. worse. The NLRC concluded that Allied Bank dismissed Galanida in bad faith.Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired by petitioner Allied Banking Corporation on 11 January 1978 and rose from accountant-book(k)eeper to assistant manager in 1991. such (sic) as that of being away from the family. such right is not absolute. is not however. tantamount to an unfair labor practice as the dismissal undermined Galanida’s right to security of tenure and equal protection of the laws. The memorandum prepared by Atty. The appellate court agreed that Allied Bank did not afford Galanida procedural due process because there was no hearing and no notice of termination. The exercise of this right. the right to transfer or reassign an employee is recognized as an employer’s exclusive right and the prerogative of management (Abbott Laboratories vs. ruled: “While it may be true that the right to transfer or reassign an employee is an employer’s exclusive right and the prerogative of management. moral and exemplary damages. the Supreme Court. the Labor Arbiter misquoted this Court’s decision in Dosch v. xxx And neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against each other. 123 SCRA 296 (1983). The appellate court ruled that the transfer from a regional office to the smaller Bacolod or Tagbilaran branches was effectively a demotion. NLRC. Thus. Durano and. The Labor Arbiter order respondent Allied Banking Corporation to pay complainant the aggregate total amount of Three Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Pesos in their ruling. lodging and travel. et al. NLRC. Hence. NLRC thus: As a general rule. In ruling that Galanida’s refusal to transfer did not amount to insubordination. On the other hand. the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank had abused its management prerogative in ordering the transfer of Galanida to its Bacolod and Tagbilaran branches. the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank failed to show any business urgency that would justify the transfer. NLRC.” (Underscoring supplied by the Labor Arbiter) The Labor Arbiter reasoned that Galanida’s transfer was inconvenient and prejudicial because Galanida would have to incur additional expenses for board. both misquoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dosch v. petitioner bank informed private respondent that he was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch effective 23 May 1994. 154 SCRA 713 ). The Court of Appeals held that Galanida’s refusal to comply with the transfer orders did not warrant his dismissal. the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter. His appointment was covered by a “Notice of Personnel Action” which provides as one of the conditions of employment the provision on petitioner’s right to transfer employees. Private respondent refused. After several hearings. It has certain limitations. the decision of the Labor Arbiter is modified by increasing the award of separation pay and granting in addition thereto backwages. The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employee is limited by the paramount police power xxx for the relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual but impressed with public interest. absolute. in Helmut Dosch vs. The Court held in Dosch: . Subsequently.
prefer to remain in my position of Manager-Philippines until such time that my services in that capacity are no longer required by Northwest Airlines. Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty. Loreto M. 2004 This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Jenkins wherein petitioner acknowledged receipt of the former’s memorandum dated August 18. Durano are admonished to be more careful in citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in the future. Florido. The phrase “[r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal. Florido. We admonish them for what is at the least patent carelessness. nor does it state this Court’s decision. Almirante and Atty. which they even underscored. Rule 10. In short. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage. Natasha V. James Benedict C. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. 5624. January 20. NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO vs. therefore. and James Benedict H. the Decision of 27 April 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.C. James Benedict C. 1975 to R.02. but that they are estranged and living separately from each other. Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer “by manufacturing. We cannot discern even the slightest hint of defiance. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. if not an outright attempt to mislead the parties and the courts taking cognizance of this case. Florido. 51451 upholding the Decision of 18 September 1998 of the NLRC in NLRC Case No. SP No.R. ATTY. The only piece of evidence on which Northwest bases the charge of contumacious refusal is petitioner’s letter dated August 28. They have two children – namely. five years old. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of the decision. A. appreciated his promotion to Director of International Sales but at the same time regretted “that at this time for personal reasons and reasons of my family. Meanwhile.. It is the duty of all officers of the court to cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court accurately. but substituted a portion of the decision with a headnote from the SCRA syllabus. JAMES BENEDICT C. 1975. Wherefore. much less imply insubordination on the part of petitioner. V-000180-98 is affirmed. FLORIDO. No. The reporter writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in reading the reports. I am unable to accept the transfer from the Philippines” and thereafter expressed his preference to remain in his position. Jr. three years old – both of whom are in complainant’s custody. .We cannot agree to Northwest’s submission that petitioner was guilty of disobedience and insubordination which respondent Commission sustained. there is another case related to the complaint for annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court of Appeals. A syllabus is not a part of the court’s decision. Durano began by quoting from Dosch.” From this evidence. A counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully considered text in the decision of the Court.C. such as that of being away from the family” does not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision. The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court decisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court. saying: “I would. flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution/Order. they deliberately made the quote from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme Court. Galanida’s counsel lifted the erroneous phrase from one of the italicized lines in the syllabus of Dosch found in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (“SCRA”). Kamille Nicole H. In the present case.
Villalon. A. hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. He showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody. JR. A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.Respondent went to complainant’s residence in Tanjay City. VILLALON. The rules of procedure are intended to facilitate the delivery of justice to those to whom it is due without unnecessary expense and waste of time for truly justice delayed is justice denied. Complainant then examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Rule 10. Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals. Respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. Hence. it must never be at the expense of the truth Moreover. No. Wherefore.A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a client’s cause. Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. Olivares and/or Olivares Realty Corporation. . but respondent failed to give it to her. a “sly manipulator of truth” as well as a “vindictive congenital prevaricator”. 2001. Florido is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. They constitute gross misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27. April 13.C. By calling complainant. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not received any motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent. James Benedict C. respondent abused and misused the privileged granted to him by the Supreme Court to practice law in the country. The court ruled that candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. complainant filed the instant complaint alleging that respondent violated his attorney’s oath by manufacturing. by Pablo R. Jr. ARSENIO C. OLIVARES and/or OLIVARES REALTY CORPORATION vs.. 2001 and November 29. Respondent’s actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. 6323. in view of all the foregoing. The lawyer’s arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. PABLO R. Arsenio C. 2007 This is a complaint1 for disbarment and suspension against respondent Atty. she refused to give custody of their children to respondent.03 . Furthermore. Atty. ATTY. flaunting and using a spurious Court of Appeals’ Resolution in and outside a court of law. emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Sensing something amiss.
upon receipt of the Petition. M. This development has. and quickly disposed of the matter by issuing a Resolution – all on the same day that the Petition was filed without notice and hearing. December 13. He ought to have known that the previous dismissal was with prejudice since it had the effect of adjudication on the merits. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. 2006. All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an empty formality.Olivares alleged that respondent’s client. "[a] lawyer shall uphold the constitution. in her certificate of non-forum shopping. Liangco for INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW in violation of Canons 1 and 10. There was no excuse not to know this elementary principle of procedural law. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. Daniel B. they dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice. on the other hand. and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor." Moreover." With all this in mind. Pampanga. He denied that he was forum shopping as his client. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Court’s processes. Everything considered. It constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede. As the first Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility states. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. They accept the sacred trust to uphold the laws of the land. A lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice.30 the penalty can no longer be imposed on him. had it docketed in his court. Respondent further claims he could not refuse his client’s request to file a new case because Al-Rasheed was the "oppressed party" in the transaction. lawyers should "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless. false or unlawful suit. respondent should have refrained from filing the second complaint against Olivares. asserts that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the interests of his client. When they take their oath as lawyers. rendered this disciplinary case moot and academic. Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts. designated Gozun as respondent in the case title. LIANGCO. disclosed the two previous cases involving the same cause of action which had been filed and dismissed. Rule 10. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. without the mandatory notice to Gozun (Complainant in A. The records show that respondent. obstruct and degrade justice. MTJ-97-1136) who would be affected by the action. 2011 This is an administrative Complaint for Disbarment filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Atty. ATTY. in effect. Respondent . repeatedly sued him for violations of the lease contract which they executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Parañaque. nor give aid nor consent to the same. Respondent. DANIEL B. No.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility wherein respondent acted upon the Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis. in view of respondent’s death on September 27. this Court finds that a reprimand is insufficient and rules instead that CBD’s recommendation for a six-month suspension from the practice of law to be more commensurate to the violation committed. However. according to the lawyer’s oath they took. Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed.
In this case. The main issue raised in the complaint was the ownership and control of Vineyard Piano Bar and Restaurant. The Court of Appeals issued the following Resolution. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates the lawyer’s oath. Lawyers are oath-bound servants of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics. Gozun was deprived of his property without due process. Moreover. he admitted that he had erred in acting upon the Petition. to his mind. Under Canon 10. This expectation is imposed upon members of the legal profession. respondent as lawyer is mandated to observe the Rules of Procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Daniel B. the trial court denied the plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Moreover. he demonstrates his ignorance of the power and responsibility that attach to the processes and issuances of a judge. It is very clear that the Motion to Restore Possession is a misplaced . Branch 24. Ramos and Ma. In an Order dated October 18. who were thus ejected from the property they had been occupying for decades. ALEJANDRO JOSE C. In a Verified Complaint the complainants alleged as follows: By whatever stretch of his imagination and evidently prompted by ill-motive. REGINA PAZ R. A. Without denying this fact in his Comment. DE DIOS vs. 2004 The instant disbarment case arose when Antonio B. and that he as a member of the bar should know. As a member of the bar and former judge.03. ATTY.C. Atty. Displaying an utter lack of familiarity with the rules. respondent is expected to be well-versed in the Rules of Procedure. Rule 65. Alejandro Jose C. for which they have sworn to be fearless crusaders. because membership in the bar is in the category of a mandate for public service of the highest order. October 25. In effect. and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice. the Court orders private respondents to comment (not move to dismiss) within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner may reply within five (5) days from receipt of the Comment (Sec. relying on the Resolution respondent issued. which he gladly and expeditiously obliged. Rule 10. Respondent recklessly used the powers of the court to inflict injustice. Wherefore. he is presumed to know that in his capacity as judge. 5908. Hence. this Court resolves to DISBAR Atty. however. he cannot render a legal opinion in the absence of a justiciable question. 6. PALLUGNA. the Sanguniang Bayan. Unfortunately. but emphasized that his actions were not attended by malice or bad faith. caused the demolition of the house of Gozun and his family. respondent is expected to know that he has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief. No. he in effect erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). As judge of a first-level court. De Dios charged Atty. Pallugna filed a Motion to Restore Possession with Motion to Appoint a New Sheriff. Pallugna with gross misconduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer relative to Civil Case No.admitted that. Regina Paz R. to wit: without necessarily giving due course to the petition for certiorari. 2002-264 The respondent was the counsel of the plaintiff in the said case then pending with the Regional Trial Court. Liangco ANTONIO B. 2002. he was merely rendering a legal opinion at the local government’s behest. Cagayan de Oro City. and with the use of the Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals. the opposite happened. RAMOS and MA.
Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s honorable membership in the legal profession. namely: Sheriff IV Reynaldo Cuyong and Sheriff IV Jaime Banaag. Indeed. and otherwise to bring the case to an end if the court thereafter determines that the issues had thereby been rendered moot and academic. a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. it should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. fairness and honesty required of him as a member of the bar. bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Attached hereto is their Sheriffs’ Report to the Court of Appeals and marked as Annex "2" hereof. addressed to THE CITY POLICE DIRECTOR. Pallugna. requested from the latter police assistance for the implementation of what he maliciously termed as a "TRO" allegedly issued by the Court of Appeals The respondent vehemently denied the allegation. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness. the opposing parties. In the implementation of the TRO. the sheriffs were afraid that harm will befall them in the hands of the rouge men of herein complainants. Their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. 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. immoral. According to the respondent – I did not perform any act of sheer misconduct nor of conduct that could discredit the legal profession or in any way have I violated my oath of office as a lawyer as I performed my duty within the bounds of law. When the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals was implemented. Cagayan de Oro City. Philippine National Police. the respondent’s actuations render him administratively liable for failing to observe the candor. they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. The IBP Commissioner ruled that the respondent violated Canon 10. It was his duty to inform the appellate court. and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion. the other counsels and the courts.attempt to deceive the Court as to the correct import and interpretation of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals Atty. oppressive. They advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law. of the factual developments in the case. 2002. If complainants may find extraordinary zeal and dedication in my work. The appellate court could then have devoted its efforts to the study and adjudication of meritorious controversies pending decision. abusive. as well as his client. there was nothing irregular. Alejandro Jose C. implemented the TRO. they should not forget that they are. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession. The police personnel acted in preservation of the peace and the sheriffs merely did their jobs. officers of the court. Indeed. fair play and nobility in the conduct of their litigation and their relations with their clients.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which the court adopts. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence. The respondent’s bad faith is evident. Rule 10. To avert any injury to the sheriffs. as he applied for a restraining order in the Court of Appeals when he very well knew that the orders of the trial court which . or wanting in legality that I did as a lawyer. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s right. then they should be grounds to commend me and not to disbar me. and with fidelity to the courts and their clients. while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. with whom he was in cahoots with as reported by Sheriff Estenzon of RTC 20. in a letter dated November 14. two Sheriffs of the Office of the Regional Trial Court. first and foremost. I formally requested for police escorts from the City Police Director.
The respondent’s insistence that he was merely "assisting in the implementation of the Order of the Higher Court" deserves scant consideration. respondent Atty. we find that for his actuations. Wherefore.were sought be enjoined had already been implemented. In the present case. . The penalty of suspension is imposed to punish the lawyer or to set an example or a warning for the other members of the bar. Pallugna is hereby found guilty of violating Canon 10 and Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of Three (3) Months from receipt of this Decision. He is sternly warned that future similar transgressions shall be dealt with more severely. Alejandro Jose C. the respondent should be suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.