1

LAWYER AND
THE COURT
CANON 13
REPORTED BY: CHARLES ALDRIN TAN
 CANON 13
2

A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS

OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO
INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE
OF INFLUENCING THE COURT
 3

CANON 13.1
Rule 13.1 - A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to,
nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with Judges.
 JIMENEZ VS. ATTY. VERANO
AC NO. 8198, JULY 15, 2014 4

FACTS:
Brodett and Tecson were the accused in cases filed by the PDEA for the illegal sale and use of dangerous
drugs.
In a Joint Inquest Resolution, the charges were dropped for lack of probable cause. Because of the
failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of the case,
several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and "cover-up" allegedly prevalent in investigations
of the drug trade.This prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional
hearings. It was revealed during one such hearing that respondent had prepared the release order for his
three clients using the letterhead of the DOJ and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales. Jimenez
and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), sent a
letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to drafting
the release order, and had thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that
respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a
member of the bar.

In his Comment, respondent reasoned that sheer faith in the innocence of his clients and fidelity to their
cause prompted him to prepare and draft the release order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was
overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited." In any case,
respondent continues, the drafted release order was not signed by the Secretary and therefore remained
"a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all.
 5

JIMENEZ VS. ATTY. VERANO

AC NO. 8198, JULY 15, 2014

ISSUE:
Is respondent guilty of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
 JIMENEZ VS. ATTY. VERANO 6
AC NO. 8198, JULY 15, 2014

RULING:
YES, Canon 13 states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court." Respondent’s
statements and others made during the hearing establish respondent’s admission that 1) he personally
approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case was still pending before the latter; and 2)
respondent caused the preparation of the draft release order on official DOJ stationery despite being
unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of "expediting the case.” This manifested a clear intent to gain
special treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper
behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively
avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest
the people’s faith inthe judicial process is diluted. The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to
the administration of justice. To that end, their clients’ success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a
member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any
means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even inthe pursuit of his
devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical
 7

Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system." Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state
or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body." The succeeding
rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer "to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.” Zeal and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within the
bounds of the law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the profession is expected if an
attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the present case, respondent fell short of these exacting
standards.

DISPOSITION
Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found GUILTYof violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon
13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months effective immediately. This also serves as an emphatic WARNING that repetition of
any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
 8

CANON 13.2
A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding
a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a
party.
 RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, 9

FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR

(ADM. CASE NO. 7006, OCTOBER 09, 2007)

FACTS:
The administrative case has its roots from the case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard
before the sala of Judge Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis
Bucalon, was found to be guilty of homicide and not murder with the evidence as basis. Counsel
of the defense thereafter filed a motion to fix that amount of bail bond, with which Senior state
prosecutor and deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests stating that
murder is non-bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which was
consequently denied. Hence, instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies, respondent
caused the publication of an article in the August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily.
Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, after he was ordered arrested and put up a bail of
P100,000.00 this time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked once again Judge Tan and his
disposition on the proceedings of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.
 10

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of professional
conduct.
 11

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the code of professional conduct Canon 13,
Rule 13.02 which states that “a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding
a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.” That instead of resorting
to the available judicial remedies before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity and
authority of the court and the presiding judge, as well as promoted distrust in the administration
of justice when he resorted to media and declared his complaints there. Atty. Bagabuyo is also
cited for violation of Canon 11, when he disrespected the courts and the judicial officers and
Rule 11.05 when he did not submit grievances against a judge to proper authorities only.
 12

CANON 13.3
A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or
agency of the government in the
normal course of judicial
proceedings.
 FOODSPHERE, INC. V. ATTY. MAURICIO,
JR.
(A.C. NO. 7199, JULY 22, 2009)
13

FACTS:
foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture of
canned goods of ―CDO‖ filed an administrative complaint against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for
violation of the code of professional responsibility. The case at hand involved a certain Alberto
Cordero who purportedly found a colony of worms inside the can of liver spread by CDO and
Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The Cordero family sued the company for P150,000
for damages, but the companies did not agree to the demands. The Cordero’s thereafter threatened
to resort to the media, if their demands are not met. Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of
the Cordero’s, was involved in various media productions such as being a writer/columnist of
tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of
a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program
Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty. Mauricio, in many cases utilized these
media outlets to place the said company in a bad light by declaring to the masses the liver spread
of worms; even after his receipt of the Order addressed to him to desist from ―further publishing,
televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case more
specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products‖. Even after the
parties have performed an agreement, signed by the Cordero’s and Atty.Mauricio himself –
resulting in the dismissal of the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still inexplicably launched a media offensive to
the companies.
 14

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mauricio has violated the Rule 13.03 of the Rule 13 of the
Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 15

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional responsibility. His recourse to
the Media, even after being told to desist from such was a clear violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon
13, ―A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party‖. His action has put not only the company Foodsphere
and CDO in a bad light, but has also degraded the dignity and authority of the legal system. Besides
the above, he has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in deceitful conduct taking advantage of
the complaint against CDO to advance his own interests, and Canon 8, when he used abusive and
offensive language in his dealings.
 16

Thank you for Listening 