City Sheriff, Iligan City v
Fortunado
G.R. No. 80390. March 27, 1998
Martinez, J.
FACTS
Fortunado owns a parcel of land mortgaged
to Traders Commercial Bank. The Latter assigned its rights to petitioner
Bautista, who requested the City Sheriff for the foreclosure of the mortgage. Respondent
said the mortgage was already extinguished by the payment of the loan and that petitioner already died. Respondents
therefore pray for the dismissal of the petition. Court required petitioner's
counsel Atty. Emilio Abrogena to comment on the said Manifestation. However,
the copy of the resolution of the Court addressed to Atty. Abrogena was
returned unclaimed after three notices, 9 with the postmaster's remark "moved."
In view of this development, the Court considered the resolution as served.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s counsel
violates his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Abrogena failed, to
inform the trial court of the death of petitioner, a duty mandated by Section
16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an
officer of the court. His duties to the court are more significant than those
which he owes to his client. His first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate;
and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law
and ethics of the profession. Reprimanded
Occena v Marquez
G.R. No. L-27396. September 30,
1974
Antonio J.
The gross value of the estate of
the late Ogan is more than P2 million. Petitioners, Atty. Jesus and Samuel
Occeña, are the lawyers for the estate executrix, Mrs Occeña, defending the
estate against claims and protecting the interests of the estate. In order to
expedite the settlement of their deceased father's estate, the seven instituted
heirs decided to enter into compromise with the claimants, as a result of which
the total amount of P220,000.00 in cash was awarded to the claimants, including
co-executor Atty. Binamira, his lawyers and his wife who is one of the heirs.
Issue: Whether Atty. Binamira made false statements in order to favor the
share of his wife.
Held:
Yes. Atty. Binamira Claimed to have
duly executed mortgage which in reality is only a proposed mortgage not signed
by parties. Record showed only a certain P50,000 loan and not P100,000 as he
claimed against the petitioners. Stated that SAMUEL OCCENA became president of
Bohol Land Transport after making the P100,000 load. Corporate secretary of
Bohol Land said otherwise. Stated a certain income distributed to heirs when no
income existed. Said that executrix failed to state assets which are actually
gifts or furniture payments to the executrix personally. Mentioned that petitioners and executrix did
not pay him when there was a receipt signed. Guilty of Contempt
Chavez v Viola
A.C. No. 2152. April 19, 1991
FACTS
In 1966, The petition of Atty.
Viola to seek Alvendia et al, against Chavez, be declared as bona fide lessees
in a land controversy was dismissed because of nonappearance by the Alvendias.
In 1977, Atty. Viola assisted same
clients in applying for an original registration of title over the same land in
controversy in 1966. He insisted that his clients were the true owners of said
land because they acquired it by sale from Vistan way back in 1929. Chavez alleged
that Viola prepared conflicting claims in behalf of his clients.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Viola
is in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
HELD: Yes. A lawyer owes honesty
and candor to the courts. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor
and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Five (5)
months suspension.
Chang Kian v Angsin
G.R. No. L-28131. February 28, 1972
Teehankee, J.
Facts:
Plaintiff Kian filed a civil
complaint against defendant. On the other hand, defendant filed a criminal
complaint against plaintiff.. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the civil
case on the ground that, under the rules, after a criminal action has been
commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. The
Supreme Court ruled the it is moot and academic and the counsels failed to
inform about the termination of the criminal case long before the petition
reached the SC
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyers violated
their duties to the court when they failed to notify the court about the
finality of the criminal case?
Ruling:
Yes.
The Court notes with regret that
had the counsels, as officers of the courts, but faithfully complied with their
duty to deal with the courts in truth and candor, and promptly manifested to
the appellate court the above developments, all which have made the principal
issue at bar moot and academic, this case would then have been disposed of and
need not have been certified to this Court, and the time needed by it to devote
to the prompt disposition of meritorious cases need not have been thus
dissipated
Casals v Cusi
G.R. No. L-35766. July 12, 1973
Teehankee, J.
Facts:
Upon the filing of the petition at
bar for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction, the Court as per its resolution resolved, without giving due course
to the petition, to require respondents to comment thereon within ten days from
notice and to issue a temporary restraining order restraining respondent court
inter alia from proceeding with the hearing of the case pending before it below.
Despite notice and order of the
court, Atty. Delante, as counsel for respondents, had repeatedly failed to file
the required comment, specifically, he failed three (3) times to file it.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Delante
violated his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. A lawyer must do his best to
honor his oath, as there would be a great detriment to, if not a failure of the
administration of justice if courts could not rely on the submissions and
representations made by lawyers in the conduct of a case. Three (3) months
suspension.
Comelec v Noynay
G.R. No. 132365. July 9, 1998
Davide, Jr., J.
Facts
In a motion for reconsideration,
petitioner’s counsel Atty. Balbune incorrectly cited a decision of the Supreme
Court: “x x x whether the Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over
election offenses is already a settled issue in the case of Alberto Naldeza
-vs- Judge Juan Lavilles, x x x”
Also, in this petition, Atty.
Balbuena states:
“x x x in the case of "Alberto
-vs- Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr.," 245 SCRA 286 x x x”
Issue:
Whether incorrect citing of a decision of the Supreme Court violates the
duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. If Atty. Balbuena was diligent
enough, he would have known that the correct name of the complainant in the
case referred to is neither Alberto Naldeza nor Alberto alone, but ALBERTO
NALDOZA. Moreover, the case was not reported in volume 245 but in volume 254 of
the SCRA.
Worse, Atty. Balbuena deliberately
made it appear that the quoted portions were findings of the SC when it is just
a part of the memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision.
Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility 14 mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v
Cloribel
G.R. No. L-27072. January 9, 1970
Sanchez, J.
FACTS
Scattered in Atty. Santiago’s
motion were other statements where he attacked the 1968 decision of the Supreme
Court, which is unfavorable to his client, as false, erroneous, and illegal.
Atty. Santiago sought the
inhibition of two Justices: Justice Castro, because allegedly, he is the
brother of the vice president of the opposing party. And Chief Justice
Concepcion because immediately after the 1968 decision, his son was appointed
to a significant position in the government, implying that their decision was
unfair and influenced.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.
Santiago is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. A lawyer is an officer
of the courts; he is, like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice. His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the
courts to which he owes fidelity, not to promote distrust in the administration
of justice. Fine only.
De Gracia v Warden of Makati
G.R. No. L-42032. January 9, 1976
Fernando, J.
Facts:
De Gracia was charged for
frustrated homicide, which later amended to a lesser offense of serious
physical injuries. To this charge, petitioner pleaded guilty. After serving his
sentence he was not released on the ground the prosecutor opposed it because
the victim already died, making him liable to homicide. Writ of Habeas Corpus
was petitioned.
On the date of the hearing,
petitioner and his counsel failed to appear, but left a manifestation that
petitioner was already released, and consequently, the petition is now moot and
academic.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s counsel
violated his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. It would appear, therefore,
that with the release of petitioner, the matter had indeed become moot and
academic. That disposes of this petition, except for one final note. There was
a lapse in judicial propriety by counsel Salvador N. Beltran who did not even
take the trouble of appearing in Court on the very day his own petition was
reset for hearing, a lapse explicable,
it may be assumed, by his comparative inexperience and paucity of practice
before this Tribunal. It suffices to call his attention to such failing by way
of guidance for his future actuations as a member of the bar.
Buenaseda v Flavier
G.R. No. 106719. September 21, 1993
Quiason, J.
FACTS:
The NCMH Nurses Association (NCMH)
filed a case of graft and corruption against Dr. Buenaseda and other officials
of DOH. DOH Secretary Flavier carried out the suspension order of the Ombudsman
Allegedly, the lawyers of Buenaseda
et al advised them not to obey the suspension order, which is a lawful order
from a duly constituted authority. NCMH maintains that such advice from the
lawyers constitute a violation against the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Ombudsman
has the power to suspend government officials.
Whether or not a Motion for
Disbarment may be filed in a special civil action.
HELD: Yes, the Ombudsman may impose
preventive suspension and recommend punitive suspension orders.
No.
It cannot be filed in this special civil action. However, The language of a lawyer, both oral
or written, must be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of
the legal profession and with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in
the profession. Besides, the use of impassioned language in pleadings, more
often than not, creates more heat than light.
Santos v Cruz
A.M. No. 491-MJ. October 30, 1980
Fernandez, J.
Facts:
Santos charged Municipal Judg. Cruz
with partiality and conduct unbecoming a judge for having intervened with
and/or prevented the complainant in filing cases.The complaint was referred to
Municipal Judge Cruz for immediate comment. The transcript shows that during
the formal investigation conducted by the respondent judge, while cross-examining
the witness, Cano, respondent lost his temper and said: "You can go to
hell I don't care or where do you want to go Mr. Cano".
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge
violated the code of professional responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes. Although there’s no
partiality, the Judge was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge by
uttering intemperate language during the trial of the case and was imposed a
penalty of fine equivalent to one (1)
month salary
People v Taneo
G.R. No. 117683. January 16, 1998
Per Curiam
Facts:
Teofilo Taneo was convicted of the
crime of rape and to suffer "the penalty of death" and "to
indemnify the offended woman, Mencina Taneo, as a deterrent to other fathers
from sexually molesting their own daughters;
On automatic review, appellant assigns as errors that
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS MENCINA TANEO
WHICH IS HIGHLY INCREDIBLE AND CONTRADICTORY.
And that they GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
APPRECIATING IN EVIDENCE THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF DRA. [] MACACHOR AS CONDUCTED
ON THE PERSON OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MENCINA TANEO AND IN INCORRECTLY
ADOPTING ITS OWN BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH
CLEARLY IS BEYOND ITS ADJUDICATIVE POWER TO DO SO.
Issue:
Whether or not counsel of appellant
violates his duties to the court?
Ruling:
Yes. It is unfortunate that counsel
for appellant has made a hasty accusation against the trial court for the above
pronouncement as "taking a partial and biased position" and having
adopted "its own biased interpretation of
the physical evidence." No any cogent and valid ground in the case
could justify such a grave imputation upon a member of the bench who merely
performed his function.
Counsel should be reminded of his duty to
observe and maintain respect due the courts of justice and judicial officers.
Arguments, written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and opposing
counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another.
Urbina v maceren
A.C. No. 288-J. June 19, 1974
Teehankee, J.
FACTS
Atty. Urbina and Atty. Gesmundo lost a case in the sala of
Judge Maceren. The two lawyers then filed a criminal case against Maceren for
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Prior to dismissal by the fiscal,
Urbina received a phone call from another lawyer who threatened him that if he
shall not withdraw the criminal case, he will be killed; that said threat was
made by Judge Maceren through Atty. Esguerra.
Judge Maceren stated that he issued
the judgment in good faith and that he made no threats against Urbina
considering that if Urbina did withdraw, there is still Atty. Gesmundo who can
continue the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not Urbina’s suit
should prosper.
HELD: No. Ths Supreme Court gave
credence to Maceren’s statement as opposed to Urbina’s bare allegations which
were not supported by evidence.
The Supreme Court also condemned
Urbina’s use of disrespectful language. A lawyer owes fidelity to the courts as
well as to his clients and that the filing on behalf of disgruntled litigants
of unfounded or frivolous charges against inferior court judges and the use of
offensive and intemperate language as a means of harassing judges unduly
burdens the courts.
Comments
Post a Comment