MONTECILLO
v GICA
G.R.
No. L-36800. October 21, 1974
ESGUERRA,
J.
FACTS:
Montecillo was accused by Gica of
slander. Atty. del Mar represented Montecillo and he successfully defended Monteceillo
in the lower court. The Court of Appeals reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar then
filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the
Court of Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices “knowingly
rendered an unjust decision” and “judgment has been rendered through
negligence” and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.
But the CA did not reverse its
judgment. Del Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices of the CAthe
CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.
Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his
suspension as well as the CA decision as to the Montecillo case, but SC denied
both. Del Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part among “the
corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice”.
Del Mar even filed a civil case
against some Supreme Court justices but the judge who handled the case
dismissed the same.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Del Mar should be held
liable.
HELD: Yes. It is the duty of the lawyer
to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the
court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which
he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken.
Del Mar was then suspended
indefinitely.
ORONCE
v CA
G.R.
No. 125766. October 19, 1998
ROMERO,
J.
Facts: During a dispute over land,
Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using
abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took
place while the case was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary
injunction was in force.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Flaminiano should be held liable.
Held: Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of
entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in
contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making
utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are unbecoming of a
member of the Bar. Although he says that they “peacefully” took over the
property, such “peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of
preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he
has flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting
“activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.”
DE
YSASI v NLRC
G.R.
No. 104599. March 11, 1994
REGALADO,
J.
FACTS:
Atty. De Ysasi and De Ysasi III are
father and sons respectively. The father owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental. Son
is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. Son III underwent
surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and while he’s nursing from his
infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. Son filed
against his father for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. His father invoked
that his son actually abandoned his work.
ISSUE:
Whether or not De Ysasi III
abandoned his work.
Whether they failed to settle
without resorting to the courts.
HELD: No. His absence from work
does not constitute abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a.)
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and
b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the
second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some
overt acts. No such intent was proven in this case.
Yes. Once again, we reiterate that
the useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid
it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. Their
relationship allows them to settle the case even without resorting to the
court.
PAJARES
v ABAD SANTOS
G.R.
NO. L-29543. November 29, 1969
TEEHANKEE,
J.
FACTS:
Udharam Bazar & Co. sued Gloria
Pajares for recovery of a certain sum of money. The lawsuit was eventually
assigned to the sala of the respondent Judge Abad Santos.
In its complaint the Udharam Bazar
& Co. averred, that pajares received the ordered good but never paid.
Instead of answering the complaint
against her, Pajares, moved for a bill of particulars to require Udharam Bazar
& Co. to itemize the kinds of goods which she supposedly purchased from the
said company. Pajares alleged that the judge acted in grave abuse of discretion
and sent petition in CFI up to SC.
ISSUE:
Whether counsel for petitioner
failed in his duty to encourage amicable settlement or a confession of judgment
to accord respect to the other party’s claim, saving his client additional
expenses and help prevent the clogging of court dockets.
RULING:
Yes. The appeal is frivolous and a
plain trick to delay payment and prolong litigation unnecessarily. Such
attitude deserves condemnation, wasting as it does, the time that the courts
could well devote to meritorious cases.
This simple collection case has
needlessly clogged the court dockets for over seven years. Had appellant been
but prudently advised by her counsel to confess judgment and ask from her
creditor the reasonable time she needed to discharge her lawful indebtedness,
the expenses of litigation that she has incurred by PEOPLE v ROSQUETA
G.R.
No. L-36138. January 31, 1974
FERNANDO,
J.
FACTS:
Rosqueta Jr and two others were
convicted of a crime. They appeal their conviction until it reached the Supreme
Court. Their lawyer (counsel de parte) Atty. Estacio, failed to file their
Brief. SC suspended him after failure to submit his explanation why he should
not be disciplined for failure to file said Brief. He filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and said that he did prepare an explanation the same being left
with Rosqueta Sr (father of accused) for the latter to mail it, however the
latter’s house burned down together with it and he only knew it when filing MR.
Atty. Estacio also explained that
his clients are withdrawing their appeal by reason of their failure to raise
the needed fund for the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Estacio’s
suspension should continue.
HELD: No. His liability is
mitigated. But the Supreme Court noted that Atty. Estacio has been
irresponsible, has been negligent and inattentive to his duty to his clients. Difficulty
in the amount necessary to pursue the appeal,
does not necessarily conclude his connection with the case. He should be aware that in the pursuance of
the duty owed this Court as well as to a client, he cannot be too casual and
unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he prepares
them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in
this case is inexcusable.
De
Roy v CA
G.R.
No. 80718. January 29, 1988
Cortes,
J:
FACTS
The firewall of a burned out
building owned by Felisa De Roy collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied
by the family of Bernal resulting in injuries and to the death of Bernal’s
daughter. He was found guilty of gross negligence.
On the last day of filing a motion
for reconsideration, De Roy’s counsel filed a motion for extension. It was
denied by the CA pursuant to the case of Habaluyas vs Japzon, the fifteen-day
period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended.
De Roy’s counsel however argued
that the Habaluyas case should not be applicable because said ruling was never
published in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court
decisions must be published in the Official Gazette before they can be binding.
HELD: No. There is no law requiring
the publication of Supreme Court decision in the Official Gazette before they
can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is bounden
duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions
of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified,
consistently reiterated and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court
decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and law journals.
Jose v CA
G.R. No. L-38581. March 31, 1976
Munoz-Palma, J.
FACTS
Jose was caught possessing several
firearms and explosives. He was prosecuted for illegally possessing said
firearms and explosives. he said that he is authorized to carry the explosives and
made a reservation to present his evidence at a later time. Trial Court
convicted him for illegal possession of hand grenade.
The Solicitor General opposed the
MFR/New Trial as it stated that the evidence sought to be presented by Jose
does not fall under “newly discovered evidence”; that his permit to possess a
hand grenade was supposed to be known to Jose at the time of the trial and not
discovered thereafter.
Jose confirmed he is an undercover
agent for the Philippine Constabulary; that being such, he was authorized to
carry firearms and explosives; that the reason why he did not disclose the same
immediately was because of his fear for reprisals considering that he resides in
“Huklandia”
ISSUE: Whether there can be New
tiral
HELD: Yes. This is a situation
where a rigid application of rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal
of courts of justice — to render justice where justice is due to secure to every individual all possible
legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged. That a
prosecuting officer, as the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation
and interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that
justice shall be done, has the solemn responsibility to assure the public that while
guilt shall not escape, innocence shall not suffer.
People v Pineda
G.R. No. L-26222. July 21, 1967
Sanches, J.
FACTS:
Defendants are charged with five cases
of murder. However, two of the defendants moved to consolidate the five
criminal cases into one and disregard the other four. Their plea is that said
cases arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse. The Judge
approved to unify all five (5) cases.
ISSUE: Whether
the fiscal should insist the five criminal cases.
RULING
NO. A prosecuting attorney, by the
nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal
information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the
averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion.
People v Madera
G.R. No. L-35133. May 31, 1974
Fernandez, J.
FACTS:
While Bana was sleeping in his
house, he was shot by Madera. Behind Madera were Marianito and Generoso. Elino Bana
died before he could be brought to the hospital but he made a dying statement
wherein he positively identified Madera as his shooter. Two of Bana’s sons who
were at the house when the shooting happened identified Madera as the shooter as
well as the two behind him. All of them was convicted of murder.
ISSUE:
Whether the Solicitor General can recommend acquittel of Marianito and Generoso
HELD: YES. insofar as Marianito and
Generoso is concerned – Madera’s guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But
Marianito’s and Generoso’s guilt were not established. This is good a time as
any to emphasize upon those in charge of the prosecution of criminal cases that
the prosecutor's finest hour is not when he wins a case with the conviction of
the accused. His finest hour is still when, overcoming the advocate's natural
obsession for victory, he stands up before the Court and pleads not for the
conviction of the accused but for his acquittal.
Tan v Gallardo
G.R. No. L-41213-14. October 5,
1976
Antonio, J.
FACTS
The petitioners were convicted of
double murder case. Judge Gallardo was accused of partiality after increasing
the penalty to double life sentences, after meeting with Mayor Larazzabal, who
is the uncle of the victims. The Solicitor General moved for new trial but the
private prosecutors disagreed.
ISSUES
Whether the Private prosecutors can
intervene.
HELD
No. Therefore, although the private
prosecutors may be permitted to intervene, they are not in control of the case,
and their interests are subordinate to those of the People of the Philippines
represented by the fiscal.
People v Sendaydiego
G.R. Nos. L-33252-54. January 20,
1978
Aquino, J.
FACTS:
The acting provincial commander,
who filed
the complaints, manifested to the trial court that he had authorized Atty.
Millora to act as private prosecutor. The city fiscal, assistant provincial
fiscal, also authorized Atty. Millora and Atty. Ubiztondo to conduct
examinations, subject to their control and supervision.
Issue: Whether the Defense counsel ask for the
inhibition of the private prosecutors.
Held: No. Private prosecutors may
appear in criminal cases “under the direction and control of the fiscal” and
that “the provincial fiscal shall represent the province in any court.” The
fiscals were present in all the appearance of the private prosecutor and there
was proper compliance.
Misamin v San Juan
A.C. No. 1418. August 31, 1976
Fernando, J.
Facts: respondent admits appearing
as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the proceeding for violations of
minimum wage law before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila
Metropolitan Police. Respondent contends that the law did not prohibit him from
such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his appearance as
counsel while holding a government position is not among the grounds provided
by the Rules of Court for the suspension or removal of attorneys.
Issue: Whether respondent should be
held administratively liable.
Held: No. There can only be
suspicion that he used his public office, despite being a public trust, and not
his legal knowledge, it shall not pass being unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a
member of the bar, should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also
for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable
profession who does not even take care that his honor remains unsullied.
PCGG v Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos.
151809-12. April 12, 2005
Puno, J.
Former Solicitor General Mendoza,
who has currently resumed the private practice of law, was sought to be
disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case involving
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties being
alleged to be ill –gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. PCGG
averred that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza since he was the one
who filed a petition praying for assistance and supervision of the court in the
liquidation of GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General, which bank was
subsequently owned by the Lucio Tan group when it submitted the winning bid.
Issue: Whether there is conflict of
interest
Ruling:
No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is
inapplicable in the case. the word “intervene” is applicable to both adverse
interest conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been found that
neither of these conflicts exists in the liquidation case and the sequestration
case. Matter as any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable
transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and
not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.
Comments
Post a Comment