E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 11
I. LA!E"#S FID$CIA
I. LA!E"#S FID$CIA"! %&LI'ATI%(S"! %&LI'ATI%(S
(Laarnie Llamas)
1. Angeles )s. $y *r. ++, SC"A - 1/ Angeles )s. $y *r. ++, SC"A - 1/ 0,,,20,,,2
Facts: In a letter addres sed to the Office of the Chief Justi ce, Judge Angeles of the RC of Calooc an Cit! charged Att!. "! Jr. #ith $iolation of Canon 1% of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!.
he accused manifested that she had alread! settled in full the ci$il as'ect in the criminal case handled ! res'ondent under the sala of udge com'lainant. Accused further alleg ed that she 'aid &*+,+++.++ directl! to the 'ri$ate com'lainant and the alance of &1%,++.++ #as deli$ered to Att!. "!, Jr., the la#!er of the 'ri$ate com'lainant and conformal! 'roduced in o'en court the recei't for such 'a!ment signed ! no less than the aforesaid la#!er. -o#e$er, 'ri$ate com'lainant manifested that she did not recei$e the amount 'aid to his la#!er, herein res'ondent, there! constraining the court to direct res'ondent to turn o$er the mone! to 'ri$ate com'lainant #hich he recei$ed in trust for the client. Att!. "! ho#e$er argued that his client did not lie to acce't the mone! ut the assertion of the la#!er #as elied ! his o#n client, the herein 'ri$ate com'lainant, #ho manifested in o'en court her #illingness to acce't the mone!. he Court again directed Att!. "! to 'roduce the mone! ut the latter argued that he e't it in his office. Conse/uentl!, the Court sus'ended the 'roceedings to enale Att!. "! to get the mone! from his la# office #hich is located onl! at the second floor of the same uilding #here this court is located. -o#e$er, res'ondent did not sho# u' an!more.
Issue: Is the res'ondent guilt! of 'rofessional misconduct0
-eld: 23. he relationshi' et#een a la#!er and a client is highl! fiduciar!4 it re/uires a high degree of fidelit! and good faith. It is designed 5to remo$e all such tem'tation and to 're$ent e$er!thing of that ind from eing done for the 'rotection of the client.5 hus, Canon 1% of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! 'ro$ides that 5a la#!er shall hold in trust all mone!s and 'ro'erties of his client that ma! come into his 'ossession.5 Furthermore, Rule 1%.+1 of the Code also states that 5a la#!er shall account for all mone! or 'ro'ert! collected or recei$ed for or from the client.5 he Canons of &rofessional 2thics is e$en more e6'licit: 5he la#!er should refrain from an! action #here! for his 'ersonal enefit or gain he auses or taes ad$antage of the confidence re'osed in him ! his client.
In the 'resent case, it is clear that res'ondent failed to 'rom'tl! re'ort and account for the &1%,++ he had recei$ed from raano on ehalf of his client. Although the amount had een entrusted to res'ondent, his client re$ealed during the hearing that she had not !et recei$ed it. 7orse, she did not e$en no# #here it #as.
he records do not clearl! sho# #hether Att!. "! had in fact a''ro'riated the said amount4 in fact, his client acno#ledged that she had recei$ed it. he! do sho#, ho#e$er, that res'ondent failed to 'rom'tl! re'ort that amount to her. his is clearl! a $iolation of his 'rofessional res'onsiilit!. It is settled that mone! collected ! a la#!er in fa$or of his clients must e immediatel! turned o$er to them and that la#!ers are ound to 'rom'tl! account for mone! or 'ro'ert! recei$ed ! them on ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes 'rofessional misconduct.
8eril!, the /uestion is not necessaril! #hether the rights of the clients ha$e een 'reudiced, ut #hether the la#!er has adhered to the ethical standards of the ar. In this case, res'ondent has not done so.
*. (a34il )s. 5al6es 17- SC"A /87 019972(a34il )s. 5al6es 17- SC"A /87 019972
Facts:Jose 9a'il #as interested in a 'iece of 'ro'ert! situated in oran, ;aguio. -e #ent into an agreement #ith Att!. Carlos 8aldes for thelatter to u! the 'ro'ert! in trust for 9a'il. 8aldes did u! the 'ro'ert! ! contracting *
loans. he lands< titles #ere transferred to his name.7hen Jose 9a'il died, Imelda 9a'il (his #ife) ac/uired the ser$ices of 8aldes and his accounting and la# firms for the settlement of the estate of Jose 9a'il. 7hat 8aldes did #as to e6clude the 'ro'ert! in ;aguio from thelist of assets of Jose 9a'il (he actuall! transferred the 'ro'ert! to his com'an!, the Ca$al Realt! Cor'oration) #hile including the loans he contracted.7hat Imelda did #as to file a suit for recon$e!ance in the CFI.7hile the case #as 'ending, Imelda also filed an administrati$e com'laintf or disarment against 8aldes. he CFI dismissed the action for recon$e!ance. he CA re$er sed the CFI.he com'laint for recon$e!ance #ent u' to the 3C and #as decided in fa$or of 9a'il. he 3C held that 8aldes onl! held the lots intrust for 9a'il.
Issue:7=n Att!. 8aldes should e administrati$el! sanctioned for hisacts, namel!:o 26cluding the 'ro'ert! in ;aguio from the estate of Jose 9a'il4
• Including his loans as claims on the estate4 and
• A''arentl!, re'resenting conflicting interests #hen his accounting firm 're'ared the list of claims of creditors
Angel 9a'il and 29OR9 against the estate of Jose 9a'il, #hich #as re'resented ! his la# firm. -eld:he 3C found 8aldes guilt! of misconduct and sus'ends him for 1 !ear.he Court held that the first t#o acts clearl! sho# that 8aldes roe the trus t re'osed on him ! Imelda 9a' il #hen the latt er agreed to use his 'rofessional ser$ices as a la#!er and an accountant. As to the third charge, #e hold res'ondent guilt! of re'resenting conflicting interests #hich is 'roscried ! Canon 1 Rule1.+>. In the case at ar, there is no /uestion that the
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9
interests of the estate and that of its creditors are ad$erse to each other. Res'ondent?s accounting firm 're'ared the list of assets and liailities of the estate and, at the same time,com'uted the claims of t#o creditors of the estate. here is clearl! a conflict et#een the interests of the estate #hich stands.
>. Liwag )s. (eri 1,/ hil. 78 019-,2Liwag )s. (eri 1,/ hil. 78 019-,2
Facts:
he com'lainants #ere re/uested ! the &inedas to act as counter@indemnitor #ith the anila 3uret! Fidelit! Com'an! in a ond 'osted for the &inedas in fa$or of 9ARIC. 7hen the &inedas failed to li/uidate their oligation, the 9ARIC enforced the ond against the anila 3uret! Fidelit! Com'an! and the latter in turn collected from the com'lainant. -a$ing failed to collect from the &inedas, the com'lainant engaged the ser$ices of the res'ondent #ho agreed to handle the matter on a contingent fee of fort! 'ercent.
he res'ondent tried to tal to the &inedas. 7hen no 'a!ment had een made, the res'ondent #rote a letter of demand, threatening to tae udicial action if the &Inedas #ould still not meet their oligation. he com'lainant gi$e the res'ondent the needed filing fee for the com'laint. he res'ondent did not actuall! file an! com'laint, although he informed the com'lainant that he alread! done so. It did not tae long efore the truth #as disco$ered and efore the com'lainant #as 'ro$oed to file an administrati$e case.
Issue:
7hether or not Att!. Bilerto 9eri should e disar. -eld:
he res'ondent has committed a reach of 'rofessional ethics #hen he made the com'lainant elie$e that the &ineda s'ouses had alread! een sued in court and did not return the amount intended for the filing fee.
Considering ho#e$er, that the res'ondent has not !et recei$ed an!thing for his ser$ices and that the com'lainant has suse/uentl! een 'aid, disarment or e$en sus'ension of the res'ondent from the 'ractice of his 'rofession #ould e too harsh and unind. he res'ondent #as re'rimanded for his offense, #ith the #arning that a re'etition of similar misconduct or an! $iolation of his oath #ill e dealt #ith more drasticall!.
. Dia )s. ;a4<nan =8 hil. 7=7 019+2Dia )s. ;a4<nan =8 hil. 7=7 019+2
Facts:
• 8icente DiaE and 3ecundino de endeEona formed a usiness 'artnershi'. he usiness failed to 'ros'er
and suffered losses. he! formulated a document of sale and mortgage in #hich endeEona recogniEed a det in fa$or of DiaE in the sum of + laid u'on endeEona<s hacienda.
• Later on, endeEona #as no#here to e found and his famil! #as unale to meet the 'a!ment. hus, the
hacienda #as offered for sale at 'ulic auction.
• DiaE<s la#!er, Att!. Ga'unan told the de'ut! sheriff of Le!te that he #as read! to id on the 'ro'ert! u' to 1%
in order to assist the endeEona famil!.
• Later, DiaE and Ga'unan entered into an agreement #herein Ga'unan should #ithdra# his id and refrain
from idding in consideration of 1,+++ 'esos from DiaE.
• Follo#ing the termination of the sheriff<s sale, DiaE 'ressed charges against Ga'unan for alleged
un'rofessional conduct.
• It #as found that Ga'unan #as also the la#!er of the endeEona famil! and #as gi$en e6tensi$e authorit!.
7hen Ga'unan too 'art in the sale, it must e assumed that he #as idding in re'resentation of his clients and not for the enefit of his clients.
• hree charges #ere considered against Ga'unan. he firs t t#o #ere related to Ga'unan< s attem't to
re'resent oth the 'arties in the case and to molest and distur DiaE ! fr$iolous motions. he third charge has to do #ith Ga'unan ha$ing inter$ened in the manner in #hich he did in the sale of the 'ro'ert! of his client endeEona.
• he Att!@Beneral is of the o'inion that the facts constitute a flagrant $iolation of the 'ro$isions of
article 1 of the Ci$il Code and article * of the &enal Code. Issue: 7O9 Ga'unan is guilt! of such $iolations.
-eld:
• Article 1 of the Ci$il Code 'ro$ides that the follo#ing 'ersons, naming them, Hcannot tae ! 'urchase,
e$en at a 'ulic or udicial auction, either in 'erson or through the mediation of another. he 'ro$ision contained in the last 'aragra'h of said article is made to include la#!ers.
• he Court does not elie$e this article has een infringed ! the res'ondent ecause he has not 'urchased
'ro'ert! at a 'ulic or udicial auction and ecause his 'artici'ation #as in re'resentation of his client.
• In article * of the &enal Code, it 'unishes Han! 'erson #ho shall solicit an! gift or 'romise as a
consideration for agreeing to refrain from taing 'art! in an! 'ulic auction.
• he agreement of oth 'arties #herein DiaE 'a!s Ga'unan the sum of 1,+++ 'esos to #ithdra# from the sale
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 ++
• 26ecution sales should e o'en to free and full com'etition in order to secure the ma6imum enefit
of the detor.
• he Court concluded that Att!. Ga'unan has een guilt! of a technical $iolation of art. * of the &enal Code.
• -o#e$er, since the com'lainant is e/uall! guilt! #ith the res'onded Ga'unan and the latter #as found to e
acting in good faith, Ga'unan shall onl! e re'rimanded.
. Canlas )s. CA 1-= SC"A 1-, Canlas )s. CA 1-= SC"A 1-,
Facts:
Att!. &aterno R. Canlas, 'etitioner, #as the la#!er of the 'ri$ate res'ondent, Francisco -errera, in an inunction case against L R Cor'oration. . #o !ears later, and #ith no imminent end to the litigation in sight, the 'arties entered into a com'romise agreement #here! L R Cor'oration accorded the 'ri$ate res'ondent another !ear to redeem the foreclosed 'ro'erties suect to 'a!ment of &%++,+++.++, #ith interest thereon at one 'er cent 'er month. he! lie#ise sti'ulated that the 'etitioner shall e entitled to attorne!?s fees of &1++,+++.++. On 9o$emer 1, 1*, the court a''ro$ed the com'romise.
he 'ri$ate res'ondent, ho#e$er, remained in dire financial straits for #hich reason he failed to ac/uire the finding to re'a! the loans in /uestion, let alone the sum of &1++,+++.++ in attorne!?s fees demanded ! the 'etitioner. hat not#ithstanding, the 'etitioner mo$ed for e6ecution insofar as his fees #ere concerned. he court granted e6ecution, although it does not a''ear that the sum #as actuall! collected.
3ometime thereafter, the 'etitioner and the 'ri$ate res'ondent met to discuss relief for the latter #ith res'ect to his liailit! to L R Cor'oration on the one hand, and his oligation to the 'etitioner on the other. he 'ri$ate res'ondent said that it #as the 'etitioner himself #ho ?offered to ad$ance the mone!,5 'ro$ided that he, the 'ri$ate res'ondent, e6ecuted a 5transfer of mortgage5 o$er the 'ro'erties in his fa$or.
he 'arties, 'ursuant to their agreement, e6ecuted a 5Deed of 3ale and ransfer of Rights of Redem'tion and=or to Redeem,5 a document that enaled the 'etitioner, first, to redeem the 'arcels in /uestion, and secondl!, to register the same in his name. he 'ri$ate res'ondent contends that the 5Deed of 3ale and ransfer of Rights of Redem'tion and=or to Redeem5 on file #ith the Register of Deeds (for KueEon Cit!) had een falsified. "'on learning of the same, the 'etitioner mo$ed for the cancellation of the ad$erse claim and for the issuance of a #rit of 'ossession. he court granted oth motions. he 'ri$ate res'ondent countered #ith a motion for a tem'orar! restraining order and later, a motion to recall the #rit of 'ossession. &redictal!, the 'etitioner mo$ed for dismissal.
Issue:
7hether or not the inailit! of the client to 'a! la#!er<s fee e a reason for the la#!er to claim the 'ro'ert! in /uestion, as his 'a!ment.
-eld:
For o$ious reasons, he 'laced his interests o$er and ao$e those of his client, in o''osition to his oath to 5conduct himself as a la#!er #ith all good fidelit! to his client.5 he occasion fit to stress that la#!ering is not a mone!maing $enture and la#!ers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of udicial notice, eluded not a fe# la# ad$ocates. he 'etitioner?s efforts 'artaing of a shaedo#n5 of his o#n client are not ecoming of a la#!er and certainl!, do not s'ea #ell of his fealt! to his oath to 5dela! no man for mone!.5
It is true that la#!ers are entitled to mae a li$ing, in s'ite of the fact that the 'ractice of la# is not a commercial enter'rise4 ut that does not furnish an e6cuse for 'lain lust for material #ealth, more so at the e6'ense of another. La# ad$ocac!, #e reiterate, is not ca'ital that !ields 'rofits. he returns it irths are sim'le re#ards for a o done or ser$ice rendered. It is a calling that, unlie mercantile 'ursuits #hich eno! a greater deal of freedom from go$ernment interference, is im'ressed #ith a 'ulic interest, for #hich it is suect to 3tate regulation. >Anent attome!? s fees, section *, of Rule 1>, of the Rules, 'ro$ides in 'art as follo#s:
32C. *. Com'ensation of attorne!s, agreement as to fees. M An attorne! shall e entitled to ha$e and reco$er from his client no more than a reasonale com'ensation for his ser$ices, #ith a $ie# to the im'ortance of the suect matter of the contro$ers!, the e6tent of the ser$ices rendered, and the 'rofessional standing of the attorne!... A #ritten contract for ser$ices shall control the amount to e 'aid therefor unless found ! the court to e unconscionale or unreasonale.
3o also it is decreed ! Article **+ of the Ci$il Code, re'roduced in 'art, as follo#s: Art. **+ ...
In all cases, the attorne!?s fees and e6'enses of litigation must e reasonale.
he Court dismissed the case and order the 'etitioner to 'a! the 'ri$ate res'ondent the sum of & >*%,+++.++, as and for damages. he 'etitioner is also ordered to sho# cause to not im'ose a disci'linar! action on him for $iolation of his oath as a la#!er.
%. Ca4<long )s. Alino SC"A =91 019-72Ca4<long )s. Alino SC"A =91 019-72
FAC3: In 1, the s'ouses 2milio and Cirila Ca'ulong lost a ci$il case. he! #ere re'resented ! Att!. anuel AliNo. he s'ouses then ga$e &*.++ (then a significant amount of mone!) in order for the la#!er to use the mone! in 'a!ing for fees in a''ealing the case. -o#e$er, the a''eal #as dismissed ecause Att!. AliNo failed to 'a!
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 ==
the docet fees and other re/uired fees.
he s'ouses then filed an administrati$e case against Att!. AliNo. In his defense, Att!. AliNo claimed that he #as gi$en the o'tion to either use the mone! for a''eal if in his udgment an a''eal is 'ro'er or to a''ro'riate the same for his legal ser$ices. he in$estigating fiscal recommended disci'linar! action against Att!. AliNo. he 3olicitor Beneral agreed #ith the fiscal. 7hen the case reached the 3u'reme Court, Att!. AliNo manifested his intent to 'roduce additional e$idence. he 3C granted his re/uest ut, after four 'ost'onements #hich Att!. AliNo ased for, he still failed to adduce additional e$idence #ithin the 'rescrie 'eriod. he 3C still ga$e him a chance and scheduled an oral argument ut again, Att!. AliNo ased for 'ost'onement. In lieu of the oral argument, the 3C re/uired AliNo to sumit his memorandum #hich he again failed to com'l! #ith.
I33"2: 7hether or not Att!. AliNo should e suected to disci'linar! action.
-2LD: es. AliNo #as alread! negligent #hen he failed to 'a! the docet fees. In the first 'lace, he alread! filed the a''eal, hence, he should ha$e a''lied the mone! gi$en to him to 'a! for the docet fees. It is clear that AliNo misa''ro'riated the funds #hen he a''lied the same as 'a!ment for his fees.
;ut his later actions in this case sho#s his high degree of irres'onsiilit!. -e #as gi$en all chances ! the 3C ut he continuall! failed to com'l! #ith the orders of the court. 3uch dis'la! of irres'onsiilit! indicates his un#orthiness as a memer of the legal 'rofession. AliNo #as disarred ! the 3u'reme Court.
. Cale>o ). SorianoCale>o ). Soriano
. enticostes )s. I?ane +,= SC"A 71 019992enticostes )s. I?ane +,= SC"A 71 019992
FAC3: he sister@in@la# of Att!. &enticostes #as sued for non@remittance of 333 'a!ments. he res'ondent, &ros. IaneE #as gi$en ! the sister@in@la# of &enticostes &1,+ as 'a!ment of her 333 contriution arrears ut said res'ondent did not remit the amount to the s!stem. Com'lainant filed #ith the RC a com'laint for 'rofessional misconduct against IaneE due to the latter<s failure to remit to the 333 her contriution and for res'ondent<s misa''ro'riation of the amount.
I33"2: 7hether or not res'ondent<s act amounted to $iolation of his oath as a la#!er.
-2LD: es. 9on@remittance ! a 'ulic 'rosecutor for o$er one !ear of funds entrusted to him constitutes conduct in gross $iolation of Rule 1.+1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! #hich 'ro$ides that a la#!er shall not engage in unla#ful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.P La#!ers are ound to 'rom'tl! account for mone! or 'ro'ert! recei$ed ! them on ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes 'rofessional misconduct.
II. LA!E"#S D$TIES I( @A(DLI(' CLIE(T#S CASESLA!E"#S D$TIES I( @A(DLI(' CLIE(T#S CASES
1 Santiago )s. Fo>asSantiago )s. Fo>as * 3CRA % (3e'temer , 1)
he Case:
&etitioners: he Com'lainants, former clients of the res'ondent, 'ra! that the latter e disarred for 5mal'ractice, neglect and other offenses #hich ma! e disco$ered during the actual in$estigation of this com'laint.5 Attached in their Affida$it of erit, the! allege that ecause of the res'ondent<s neglect and mal'ractice of la# that the! lost their case
to Judge Ca'ulong and their a''eal in the Court of A''eals.
Res'ondent: he unfa$orale udgment ! the Regional rial Court in the case is not im'utale to Qhis mistae ut rather im'utale to the merits of the case. -e further claims that the com'lainants filed this case to harass him ecause he refused to share his attorne!?s fees in the main laor case he had handled for them. he res'ondent then 'ra!s for the dismissal of this com'laint for utter lac of merit, since his failure to file the ans#er #as cured and, e$en granting for the sae of argument that such failure amounted to negligence, it cannot #arrant his disarment or sus'ension from the 'ractice of the la# 'rofession.
he Antecedent Facts:
3antiago, -onti$eros, anas, and 9ordista, memers of Far 2astern "ni$ersit! Facult! Association (F2"FA), #ere alleged to ha$e illegall! e6'elled &aulino 3al$ador from the union. he latter filed a com'laint #ith the De't. of Laor and 2m'lo!ment (DOL2) #hich ruled in fa$or of 3al$ador. 3use/uentl!, 3al$ador filed #ith the Regional rial Court (RC) of 8alenEuela a com'laint against the com'lainants for actual, moral, and e6em'lar! damages and attorne!?s fees.
he res'ondent, As the com'lainants? counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res udicata and (*) lac of urisdiction. Later, he filed a su''lemental motion to dismiss. Judge Ca'ulong granted the motion ut
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 88
#as later re@instated u'on 3al$ador<s motion for reconsideration and re/uired the com'lainants herein to file their ans#er #ithin a none6tendile 'eriod of fifteen da!s from notice. Instead of filing an ans#er, the res'ondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case. his motion ha$ing een denied, the res'ondent filed #ith this Court a 'etition for certiorari. ;oth 'etition and the suse/uent motion for reconsideration #ere denied, res'ondent still did not file the com'lainants< ans#er. he res'ondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to sto' the e6@'arte rece'tion of e$idence efore the Cler of Court, ut to no a$ail. hereafter, the RC rendered udgment in fa$or of 3al$ador. Com'lainants, assisted ! res'ondent, ele$ated the matter to the Court of A''eals ut affirmed the decision in toto ! the RC.
he res'ondent admits that it #as his dut! to file an ans#er in the ci$il case= -e ustifies his failure to do so n his o$erEealousness to /uestion the Denial Order of the trial court, so he instead, thru honest mistae and e6cusale neglect, filed a &2IIO9 FOR C2RIORARI #ith the -onorale Court, and, #hen the Court of A''eals, to #hich B.R. 9o. 1++> #as referred, dismissed the 'etition, he again 5inad$ertentl!5 failed to file an ans#er due to honest mistae and ecause of his o$erEealousness as stated earlier. &etitioner contends that the res'ondent<s act #as not an honest mistae ut #as 5delierate, malicious and calculated to 'lace them on the legal disad$antage, to their damage and 'reudice5 for, as admitted ! him in his motion to set aside the order of default, his failure to do so #as 5due to $olume and 'ressure of legal #or.5
Issue: 7hether the res'ondent committed cul'ale negligence, as #ould #arrant disci'linar! action, in failing to file for the com'lainants an ans#er in Ci$il Case 9o. >*%@8@1.
Ruling: It is a6iomatic that no la#!er is oliged to act either as ad$iser or ad$ocate for e$er! 'erson #ho ma! #ish to ecome his client. -e has the right to decline em'lo!ment, suect, ho#e$er, to Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!1. Once he agrees to tae u' the cause of a client, the la#!er o#es fidelit! to such cause and must al#a!s e mindful of the trust and confidence re'osed in him. -e must ser$e the client #ith com'etence and diligence, and cham'ion the latter?s cause #ith #holehearted fidelit!, care, and de$otion. 2lse #ise stated, he o#es entire de$otion to the interest of the client, #arm Eeal in the maintenance and defense of his client?s rights, and the e6ertion of his utmost learning and ailit! to the end that nothing e taen or #ithheld from his client, sa$e ! the rules of la#, legall! a''lied. his sim'l! means that his client is entitled to the enefit of an! and e$er! remed! and defense that is authoriEed ! the la# of the land and he ma! e6'ect his la#!er to assert e$er! such remed! or defense. If much is demanded from an attorne!, it is ecause the entrusted 'ri$ilege to 'ractice la# carries #ith it the correlati$e duties not onl! to the client ut also to the court, to the ar, and to the 'ulic. A la#!er #ho 'erforms his dut! #ith diligence and candor not onl! 'rotects the interest of his client4 he also ser$es the ends of ustice, does honor to the ar, and hel's maintain the res'ect of the communit! to the legal 'rofession.
&ressure and large $olume of legal #or 'ro$ide no e6cuse for the res'ondent?s inailit! to e6ercise due diligence in the 'erformance of his dut! to file an ans#er. 2$er! case a la#!er acce'ts deser$es his full attention, diligence, sill, and com'etence, regardless of its im'ortance and #hether he acce'ts it for a fee or for free.
All told, the res'ondent committed a reach of Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! #hich re/uires him to ser$e his clients, the com'lainants herein, #ith diligence and, more s'ecificall!, Rule 1.+> thereof #hich 'ro$ides: 5A la#!er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there#ith shall render him liale.5
*.) Cantiller )s. otenciano 17, SC"A =- 019792 Cantiller )s. otenciano 17, SC"A =- 019792
Facts: -umerto 8. &otenciano is a 'racticing la#!er and a memer of the &hili''ine ;ar under Roll 9o. *1%*. -e is charged #ith deceit, fraud, and misre'resentation, and also #ith gross misconduct, mal'ractice and of acts unecoming of an officer of the court.
An action for eectment #as filed against &eregrina Cantiller. he court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to $acate #as then issued against Cantiller.
Cantiller then ased the res'ondent to handle their case. he com'lainant #as made to sign ! res'ondent #hat she descried as a 5Qhastil! 're'ared, 'oorl! concei$ed, and ha'haEardl! com'osed 'etition for annulment of udgmentP. he 'etition #as filed #ith the Regional rial Court in &asig, anila. Res'ondent demanded from the
1 Canon 1. La#!er shall not refuse his ser$ices to the need!.
1.+1 @ A la#!er shall not decline to re'resent a 'erson solel! on account of the latter<s race, se6, creed or status of life, or ecause his o#n o'inion regarding the guilt of said 'erson.
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 -
-1.+* S A la#!er shall not decline, e6ce't for serious and sufficient cause, an a''ointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae or a re/uest from the Integrated ;ar of the &hili''ines or an! of its cha'ters for rendition of free legal aid.
1.+> S A la#!er shall not refuse to acce't re'resentation of an indigent client unless: (a) he is not in 'osition to carr! out the #or effecti$el! or com'letel!4 () he laors under conflict of interest et#een him and the 'resent client and the 'ros'ecti$e client.
1.+ S A la#!er #ho acce'ts the cause of a 'erson unal e to 'a! his 'rofessional fees shall oser $e the same standard of conduct go$erning his relations #ith 'a!ing clients.
com'lainant & l,+++.++ as attorne!?s fee. -o#e$er the udge of the said court ased the res'ondent to #ithdra# as counsel ! reason of their friendshi'.
Later, Cantiller 'aid &otenciano &*,+++.++ as demanded ! the latter #hich #as allegedl! needed to e 'aid to another udge #ho #ill issue the restraining order ut e$entuall! &otenciano did not succeed in locating the udge. Com'lainant 'aid & 1+,+++.++ to &otenciano ! $irtue of the demand of the latter. he amount #as allegedl! to e de'osited #ith the reasurer?s Office of &asig as 'urchase 'rice of the a'artment and & 1,+++.++ to co$er the e6'enses of the suit needed in order for the com'lainant to retain the 'ossession of the 'ro'ert!. ;ut later on Cantiller found out that the amounts #ere not necessar! to e 'aid. A demand #as made against &otenciano ut the latter did not ans#er and the amounts #ere not returned.
Contrar! to &otenciano<s 'romise that he #ould secure a restraining order, he #ithdre# his a''earance as counsel for com'lainant. Com'lainant #as not ale to get another la#!er as re'lacement. -ence, the order to $acate #as e$entuall! enforced and e6ecuted.
Issue: 7hether or not &otenciano reached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.
-eld: 7hen a la#!er taes a client?s cause, he there! co$enants that he #ill e6ert all effort for its 'rosecution until its final conclusion. he failure to e6ercise due diligence or the aandonment of a client?s cause maes such la#!er un#orth! of the trust #hich the client had re'osed on him. he acts of res'ondent in this case $iolate the most elementar! 'rinci'les of 'rofessional ethics.
he Court finds that res'ondent failed to e6ercise due diligence in 'rotecting his client?s interests. Res'ondent had no#ledge eforehand that he #ould e ased ! the 'residing udge to #ithdra# his a''earance as counsel ! reason of their friendshi'. Des'ite such 'rior no#ledge, res'ondent too no ste's to find a re'lacement nor did he inform com'lainant of this fact.
La#!ers should e fair, honest, res'ectale, ao$e sus'icion and e!ond re'roach in dealing #ith their clients. he 'rofession is not s!non!mous #ith an ordinar! usiness 'ro'osition. It is a matter of 'ulic interest.
>.) "%D%LF% ILLA"E 4etitioner )s. ATT!. E$STAB$I% . %(TE"% res4on6ent."%D%LF% ILLA"E 4etitioner )s. ATT!. E$STAB$I% . %(TE"% res4on6ent.
A.C. 9o. >*> Jul! 1>, 1 Facts:
&acifica illare, the mother of the com'lainant, otained a fa$orale udgment from the C of Ara #hich ordered 2lsa D! Co to $acate the 'remises suect of the eectment case (Ci$il Case 9o. ). Co, through res'ondent as counsel, a''ealed the decision to the RC. 3he neither filed a su'ersedeas ond nor 'aid the rentals adudged ! the C. he RC affirmed in toto the decision of the C.
he CA dismissed Co?s a''eal from the decision of the RC for failure to com'l! #ith 3ection ** of ;.&. ;lg. 1* and 3ection **() of the Interim Rules and Buidelines. According to the CA, Co should ha$e filed a 'etition for re$ie# and not an ordinar! a''eal.
he udgment of the C ecame final and e6ecutor! on 9o$emer 1, 1%.
Res'ondent filed a total of si6 a''eals, com'laints or 'etitions to frustrate the e6ecution of the C udgment in Ci$il Case 9o. , to #it:
(1) Ci$il Case 9o. > M A''eal from the decision rendered in Ci$il Case 9o. of the unici'al rial Court,
;angued, Ara, #ith the Regional rial Court, Ara4
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 //
(>) CA@B.R. 3& 9o. 11%+ M An Action For the Annulment of Decisions And=Or Reformation or 9o$ation of
Decisions filed #ith the Court of A''eals4
() B.R. 9o. %+ M &etition For Re$ie# On Certiorari filed #ith the 3u'reme Court4
() CA@B.R. 3& 9o. 1++ M A''eal And=Or Re$ie# ;! Certiorari, 2tc. filed also #ith the Court of A''eals4 and,
(%) 3& Ci$il Action 9o. %* M &etition For Certiorari, &rohiition, andamus #ith &reliminar! Issuance of
&rohiitor! Order filed #ith the Regional rial Court, ;ranch 1, ;angued, Ara. I33"2:
1. 7hether or not res'ondent resorted to de$ious and underhanded means to dela! the e6ecution of the
udgment rendered ! the C ad$erse to his clients. 23
*. 7hether or not res'ondent is guilt! of forum sho''ing. 23
-2LD:
"nder Canon 1 of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!, a la#!er is re/uired to re'resent his client 5#ithin the ounds of the la#.5 he Code enoins a la#!er to em'lo! onl! fair and honest means to attain the la#ful oecti$es of his client (Rule 1.+1) and #arns him not to allo# his client to dictate the 'rocedure in handling the case (Rule 1.+>). In short, a la#!er is not a gun for hire.
"nder Canon 1* of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit!, a la#!er is re/uired to e6ert e$er! effort and consider it his dut! to assist in the s'eed! and efficient administration of ustice. A la#!er shall not file multi'le actions arising from the same cause (Rule 1*.+*). A la#!er shall not undul! dela! a case, im'ede the e6ecution of a udgment or misuse court 'rocesses (Rule 1*.+)
he rights of res'ondent?s client in Ci$il Case 9o. of the C #ere full! 'rotected and her defenses #ere 'ro'erl! $entilated #hen he filed the a''eal from the C to the RC. ;ut res'ondent thereafter resorted to de$ious and underhanded means to dela! the e6ecution of the udgment rendered ! the C ad$erse to his client. he said decision ecame e6ecutor! e$en 'ending its a''eal #ith the RC ecause of the failure of Co to file a su'ersedeas ond and to 'a! the monthl! rentals as the! fell due. Furthermore, his 'etition for annulment of the decisions of the C and RC #hich he filed #ith the CA (CA@B.R. 9o. 11%+) #as defecti$e and dilator!. According to the CA, there #as no allegation therein that the courts had no urisdiction, that his client #as denied due 'rocess, or 5that the udgments in the former cases #ere secured through fraud.5
Judging from the numer of actions filed ! res'ondent to forestall the e6ecution of the same udgment, res'ondent is also guilt! of forum sho''ing. he Court e6'lained that forum sho''ing e6ists #hen, ! reason of an ad$erse decision in one forum, defendant $entures to another for a more fa$orale resolution of his case
;! ha$ing #ilfull! and no#ingl! aused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a fa$orale udgment, #hich efforts #ere all reuffed, res'ondent $iolated the dut! of a memer of the ;ar to institute actions onl! #hich are ust and 'ut u' such defenses as he 'ercei$es to e trul! contestale under the la#s
7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent is 3"3&29D2D for one !ear.
. Choa )s. ChiongsonChoa )s. Chiongson (A.. 9o. J@@1+%>. Feruar! , 1%)
FAC3:
A com'laint #as filed against Alfonso Choa for maing untruthful statements or falsehoods in his &etition for 9aturaliEation. he case #as doceted as Criminal Case 9o. +>** and #as assigned to unici'al rial Court in Cities (CC) of ;acolod Cit! ;ranch III 'resided ! the res'ondent Judge Roerto Chiongson. On Feruar! *1, 1, res'ondent Judge found the com'lainant guilt! of the crime of 'erur!. Later on, Att!. Ra!mundo A. KuiroE as counsel for the com'lainant and $erified ! the latter, charged Judge Chiongson #ith gra$e misconduct, gross ias and 'artialit!, and ha$ing no#ingl! rendered an unust udgment ased on ne6t@door@neighor relationshi' et#een Choa?s #ife the 'ri$ate com'lainant in the 'erur! case and res'ondent udge. Also, a''eal on the criminal case #as filed together #ith the administrati$e com'laint.
Issue: 7hether or not Att!. KuiroE assisted in filing a groundless, unfounded, or false suit against res'ondent udge. -eld:
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 77
#illingl! 'romote or sue an! groundless, false or unla#ful suit nor gi$e aid nor consent to the sameP4 9eedless to state, the la#!er<s fidelit! to his client must not e 'ursued at the e6'ense of truth and the administration of ustice,and it must e done #ithin the ounds of reason and common sense.
As to the res'ondent Judge<s eing a ne6t@door neighor of the com'lainant<s #ife @ the com'lainant in the 'erur! case @ it must e stressed that that alone is not a ground for either a mandator! dis/ualification under the first 'aragra'h or for a $oluntar! dis/ualification under the second 'aragra'h of 3ection 1, Rule 1> of the Rules of Court. In an! e$ent, the com'lainant has failed to disclose in his com'laint that he had raised this matter at an! time efore the rendition of the udgment. In fact, the summar! of the grounds of his motion for reconsideration in the res'ondent<s order den!ing the said motion does not include this matter. If indeed the com'lainant honestl! elie$ed in the ustness of this grie$ance, he #ould ha$e raised it in an a''ro'riate 'leading efore the trial court and not filing an administrati$e case.
7-2R2FOR2, #e here! im'ose u'on A. RA"9DO A. K"IROT a FI92 in the amount of Fi$e housand &esos (&,+++.++) to e 'aid #ithin fi$e () da!s from notice hereof. -e is further 7AR92D that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall e dealt #ith more se$erel!.
.) C%S%S F%$(D"! S@% %";E"S $(I%( 5 L% &$C%S%S F%$(D"! S@% %";E"S $(I%( 5 L% &$
Facts:
After Cosmos Foundr! 3ho' #as urned , Ong ing estalished Centur! Foundr! 3ho' #here he and his famil! resided in the 'remises. After se$eral attem'ts to settle a 'ending unfair laor 'ractice case 'ro$ed unsuccessful, Ong ing sold all his usiness, including e/ui'ment and rights in the 9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho' to his com'adre Lo ;u, for &h'*+,+++.
On Jan 1%, 1>, 'etitioner CF37" otained from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias #rit of e6ecution for the satisfaction and enforcement of the udgment in its fa$or. hereafter, #rit #as ser$ed Januar! 1 and 1, 1>, le$!ing on the 'ersonal 'ro'erties of the Cosmos Foundr! 3ho' or the 9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho' for the 'ur'ose of conducting the 'ulic auction sale.
Res'ondent Lo ;u filed an urgent motion to recall #rit of e6ecution, asserting lac of urisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). he CIR, in its order dated Fe *>, 1>, denied his motion. 3o lie#ise #as the motion for reconsideration.
Lo ;u a''ealed ! certiorari ut the Court denied this 'etition in its resolution dated Jul! 1, 1>. In the mean#hile, there #as a re'le$in suit ! Lo ;u in the Court of First Instance (CFI) anila co$ering the same 'ro'erties.
"'on recei't of order from the Court den!ing certiorari, 'etitioner Laor "nion filed a second motion to dismiss com'laint. After the com'laint #as dismissed ! the lo#er court, decision #as ele$ated to the Court of A''eals. Att!. ;usmente, counsel for res'ondent Lo ;u, did s'ecificall! maintain: 5...in order to $indicate his rights o$er the
le$ied 'ro'erties, in an e6'editious or less e6'ensi$e manner, herein a''ellant $oluntaril! sumitted himself, as a forced inter$enor, to the urisdiction of res'ondent CIR, ! filing an urgent ?otion to Recall 7rit of 26ecution,? 'recisel! /uestioning the urisdiction of said Court to 'ass u'on the $alidit! and legalit! of the sale of the ?9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho'? to him, #ithout the latter eing made a 'art! to the case, as #ell as the urisdiction of said Court to enforce the Decision rendered against the res'ondents in the "L& Case ! means of an alias #rit of e6ecution against his 'ro'erties found at the ?9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho'.
Issues:
(1) 7hether or not counsel Att! ;usmente 'erformed his oligation as an officer of the court #hile sustaining the dignit! of the 'rofession #hile acting as counsel for Lo ;u.
-eld:
A legal counsel is e6'ected to defend a client<s cause ut not at the e6'ense of truth and in defiance of the clear 'ur'ose of laor la#s. For e$en such case, Att! ;usmente had not e6cul'ated himself. -e ought to rememer that his oligation as an officer of the court, no less than the dignit! of the 'rofession, re/uires that should not act lie an errand@o! at the ec and call of his client, read! and eager to do his e$er! idding. If he fails to ee' that admonition in mind, then he 'uts into serious /uestion his good standing in the ar.
%. 'AALI(DA 5S 'AALI(DA 5S ALCA(TA"AALCA(TA"A
FAC3:
com'lainant Domingo Bamalinda charges retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Att!. Joselito Lim #ith gra$e ause of their 'rofession, dece'tion, threats, dishonoring and inuring the re'utation of said com'lainant and ringing aout the
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CCaasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 99
loss of his land ut #as dismissed. the record estalishes that Att!. Lim #as merel! 'erforming his dut! as counsel for the 'laintiffs in Ci$il Case 9o. >* #hen he did #hat is no# com'lained ofIn Ci$il Case 9o. >* and Felicidad ;alot had sued the heirs of A'olinario Bamalinda for recon$e!ance, #ith damages, of the eastern half of Lot 9o. >*1. 'laintiffs #ere ale to secure a #rit of 'reliminar! inunction.
&ending a''eal to the CA, com'lainant entered a 'ortion of the area in dis'ute, in the elief that the #hole of Lot 9o. >*1 elonged to him ! $irtue of a Deed of 26traudicial 3ettlement #ith Kuitclaim e6ecuted ! the heirs of A'olinario Bamalinda #hich #as under the latter?s name at that time. hus, #hen the tenants of 3alud ;alot, entered the 'ortion eing culti$ated ! com'lainant, the latter re'orted the incident to the 'olice.
From 3alud ;alot?s $ie#'oint, it #as com'lainant #ho intruded into her land. Rel!ing therefore on the inunction issued ! the lo#er court, she filed through counsel, Att!. Lim, a motion to declare com'lainant Bamalinda in contem't of court.
Com'lainant inter'osed the defense that the area in dis'ute #as different from the area occu'ied ! him. he lo#er court ordered a resur$e! #hich sho#ed that contrar! to com'lainant?s claim, the lot occu'ied ! him #as the $er! same land in$ol$ed. Accordingl!, the lo#er court and CA declared com'lainant in contem't.
Att!. Lim mo$ed for the e6ecution of the affirmed udgment, and #hen the #rit of e6ecution #as returned unsatisfied, filed an 5"rgent otion to Re/uire Domingo Bamalinda to 3urrender C #hich #as granted, ut com'lainant refused to surrender the O#ner?s Co'! 'rom'ting Att!. Lim to file the /uestioned 5otion to Declare O#ner?s Co'! of C 9ull and 8oid,5 #hich the lo#er court granted.
the /uestioned acts of Att!. Lim #ere all done in line #ith his dut! to 'rosecute his clients? cause in Ci$il Case 9o. >*. he first motion #as filed to 'rotect his clients? 'ossessor! rights o$er the 'ro'ert! in dis'ute #hile the second motion #as made to 'rocure e6ecution of the decision in Ci$il Case 9o. >*.
Issue: 7O9 the acts of att!. Lim #ere correct. -eld:
es. A la#!er o#es fidelit! to the cause of his client and must e mindful of the trust and confidence re'osed in him. -e shall ser$e his client #ith com'etence and diligence, and his dut! of entire de$otion to his client?s cause not onl! re/uires, ut entitles him to em'lo! e$er! honorale means to secure for the client #hat is ustl! due him or to 'resent e$er! defense 'ro$ided ! la# to enale the latter?s cause to succeed. An attorne!?s dut! to safeguard the client?s interests commences from his retainer until the effecti$e release from the case 1% or the final dis'osition of the #hole suect matter of the litigation. During that 'eriod, he is e6'ected to tae such reasonale ste's and such ordinar! care as his client?s interests ma! re/uire.
his is 'recisel! #hat Att!. Lim #as doing #hen he filed the motions com'lained of. -e should e commended, not condemned, for diligentl! and com'etentl! 'erforming his duties as an attorne!4
ACCORDI9BL, the administrati$e charges against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Att!. Joselito Lim are DI3I332D for lac of merit.
.) *. . *$A( S%(S I(C. 5S. LIA('A I(D$ST"IES I(C.*. . *$A( S%(S I(C. 5S. LIA('A I(D$ST"IES I(C.
;acground:
his is a sim'le collection case that unnecessaril! reached the 3u'reme Court &AL2 related 'hrase=s:
URules of Court #ere de$ised to limit the issues and a$oid unnecessar! dela!s and sur'rises. -ence mandator! (are the) 'ro$isions of the Re$ised Rules of Court for a 're@trial conferenceP
he Rules further re/uire that 5e$er! 'leading shall e signed ! at least one attorne! of record Uthat signature constitutes a certificate ! him that he read the 'leading and to the est of his no#ledge there is good ground to su''ort it4 it is not inter'osed for dela!5 #ith the e6'ress admonition for a #illful $iolation of this rule, an attorne! ma! e suected to disci'linar! action.
he coo'eration of litigants and their attorne!s is needed so that the salutar! oecti$es of these Rules ma! e attained.P
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CaCasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 11,,
Facts:
&laintiff sought reco$er! from defendant of the sum of &++ re'resenting the un'aid alance of office e/ui'ment and also for the 'a!ment of legal interests and costs for attorne!?s fees.
Judgment #as rendered in fa$or of 'laintiff and defendant a''ealed the same to the Court of First Instance of anila. Defendant filed its Ans#er #here it denied s'ecificall! all the allegations of 'aragra'hs of the com'laint, #hich are the material allegations referring to its 'urchase of the office e/ui'ment, its 'artial 'a!ment and refusal and failure to 'a! the un'aid alance des'ite re'eated demands.
Defendant did not den! under oath the authenticit! of the 'urchase order anne6ed to the com'laint.
he lo#er Court rendered its decision granting 'laintiff?s motion for udgment on the 'leadings. "'holding the 'laintiff?s 'osition that 5#hen defendant?s ans#er denies the allegations ecause the defendant ?has no no#ledge or information sufficient to form a elief? and ?s'ecificall! denies? other allegations, denials are in fact mere general denials amounting to admissions.
Defendant filed its notice of a''eal asing that its a''eal e ele$ated to the Court of A''eals, resulting in further dela! in the resolution of this sim'le collection case,
9o facts are dis'uted in this a''eal defendant@a''ellant sim'l! insists that it had tendered issues of fact and the Court erroneousl! rendered udgment on the 'leadings. he /uestions 'resented are issues onl! of la#.
Conse/uentl!, the 'o#er of a''ellate re$ie# in this instance elongs to the 3u'reme Court. Issue: 7hether the a''eal should e dismissed0
Issue related to &AL2: he dut! of a litigant and his attorne! in a$oiding the needless clogging of court docets. Ruled
7e find defendant?s a''eal to e fri$olous. 9o error #as committed ! the Court elo# in ruling that 5s'ecific denials5 are in la# general denials amounting to admissions of the material allegations ased on the 'ro$isions of Rule , section 1+ and Rule , section 1 in relation to Rule 1, section 1 and Rule *+, section > of the Re$ised Rules of Court. he 3u'reme Court has stressed that An une6'lained denial of information and elief of a matter of records, the means of information concerning #hich are #ithin the control of the 'leader, or are readil! accessile to him, is e$asi$e and is insufficient to constitute an effecti$e denial.P
Defendant@a''ellant has no cause to com'lain of the udgment a''ealed from. Its claim that it tendered an issue #ith affirmati$e defense of ha$ing no oligation to 'a! #as a mere conclusion not 'remised on an allegation of material facts.
Failure to den! under oath the authenticit! of the 'urchase order anne6ed re/uired ! Rule , section of the Re$ised Rules of Court #as 'ro'erl! deemed an admission of the genuineness and due e6ecution thereof.
Cases such as this contriute to the needless clogging of the court docets. he Rules of Court #ere de$ised to limit the issues and a$oid unnecessar! dela!s and sur'rises. -ence, the mandator! 'ro$isions of Rule *+ of the Re$ised Rules of Court for a 're@trial conference for the sim'lification of the issues and the consideration of all matters #hich ma! aid in the 'rom't dis'osition of an action. he Rules further re/uire in Rule section that 5e$er! 'leading of a 'art! re'resented ! an attorne! shall e signed ! at least one attorne! of record in his indi$idual name5 and that 5the signature of an attorne! constitutes a certificate ! him that he has read the 'leading and that to the est of his no#ledge, information and elief, there is good ground to su''ort it4 and that it is not inter'osed for dela!5 #ith the e6'ress admonition that 5for a #illful $iolation of this rule, an attorne! ma! e suected to disci'linar! action.5 he coo'eration of litigants and their attorne!s is needed so that the salutar! oecti$es of these Rules ma! e attained.
. *$A( A%" com4lainant )s. ATT%"(E! E$STAB$I% &ELT"A( res4on6ent.*$A( A%" com4lainant )s. ATT%"(E! E$STAB$I% &ELT"A( res4on6ent.
FAC3:
2usta/uio ;eltran, a memer of the &hili''ine ar, #as accused of taing or causing to e detached from the rollo of 3'ecial &roceedings 9o. %% of the Court of First Instance of Camarines 3ur, the financial re'ort of com'lainant Juan AEor as e6ecutor, as #ell as the order of the court terminating the same4 of
thereafter filing a motion to re/uire com'lainant to render an accounting and to deli$er the 'ro'ert! left in the #ill to the eneficiaries4 and of ha$ing instructed his client Lorelie ;ornales and the latter?s mother, Aniana 3adol@2scria to enter forcil! a 'arcel of land forming a 'art of the estate #hen he ne# of its ha$ing een 're$iousl! sold, thus
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CaCasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 1111
necessitating a com'laint for forcile entr!.
I33"2: 7hether or not ;eltran is guilt! of mal'ractice and gross misconduct ased on the alleged acts. -2LD:
9o. he court ado'ts the re'ort and recommendation of the 3olicitor Beneral #hich states that: 5he records are entirel! ereft of an! direct, 'ositi$e and com'etent e$idence to su''ort the charge that res'ondent detached and remo$ed official records from the Office of the Cler of Court of Camarines 3ur, 'articularl! the financial re'ort in, and the order of closure of, 3'ecial &roceeding 9o. %%. If at all, com'lainant a''ears to ha$e merel! assumed that ecause, #hen he #as allegedl! sho#n ! the cler of court the records of said case, the same 'ur'ortedl! contained at the time onl! the 'roated #ill and res'ondent?s motion for an accounting therein then res'ondent must ha$e s'irited a#a! the financial re'ort filed therein ! com'lainant and the order of the court for the closure of said 'roceedings. On the other hand, res'ondent did not onl! $igorousl! den! the im'utation that he too said records from the e6'ediente of the case, ut he also sumitted in e$idence a certification of the ranch cler of the Court of First Instance of Camarines 3ur attesting to the fact that the records of the aforecited 'roate 'roceedings, including the allegedl! missing financial re'ort and order, are all intact and unaltered. 9eedless to state, mere assum'tions cannot e the asis of an! finding against an! memer of the ar #ho, as an official of the court, is 'resumed to act #ith the utmost decorum and good faith in all his dealings.5
As to the accusation that res'ondent still filed a motion for accounting on Jul! , 11 des'ite his 're$ious no#ledge that the com'lainant as e6ecutor had alread! filed his financial re'ort and that in fact the 'roate 'roceedings had een closed and terminated, the re'ort characteriEed it as 5unfounded and aseless. Res'ondent e6'lained that #hen he e6amined the records of said case on Jul! , 11, he found on the last 'age thereof the financial re'ort of com'lainant of a! 11, 1, together #ith the latter?s motion for the consideration and a''ro$al thereof, ut that as said motion a''eared not to ha$e een resol$ed ! the court, he then got the im'ression that the 'roate 'roceedings had not !et een finall! terminated. hat such e6'lanation is reasonale and elie$ale is sho#n ! the fact that e$en the 'roate court found com'lainant?s financial re'ort on the last 'age of the record of the case still unacted u'on, #hich situation lie#ise led it to elie$e that the case had not !et een terminated. Of course, had res'ondent made a more diligent and e6hausti$e e6amination of the records of said 'roate 'roceedings, he #ould ha$e found some#here therein com'lainant?s financial re'ort of Jul! , 1 and the court?s order of closure of Januar! , 1, and he #ould not ha$e filed his motion for accounting in /uestion. ;e this as it ma!, ho#e$er, #e fail to discern in res'ondent?s filing of his aforesaid motion for accounting an! delierate attem't or intention on his 'art to mislead the 'roate court in said case, or to cause com'lainant discredit or 'ut him in disre'ute so as to ustif! disci'linar! action against him in this case. here #as no ustification either for the allegation that res'ondent induced his clients, Lorelie ;ornales and the latter?s mother Aniana 3adol@2scria, to enter forcil! one of the 'arcels of land suect of 3'ecial &roceeding 9o. %%.
hus, res'ondent should he asol$ed of the charges hurled against him. Com'lainant ought to ha$e dis'la!ed a greater sense of res'onsiilit!. -e should ha$e refrained from im'osing on this Court or the Office of the 3olicitor Beneral a needless urden and incon$enience. A''arentl! #hat moti$ated him in filing his com'laint #as the Eeal #ith #hich res'ondent fought for the interests of his client. Com'lainant
should e a#are that this Court does not loo #ith fa$or u'on accusations arising from dissatisfaction and resentment at the mode in #hich a la#!er diligentl! and tenaciousl! 'rosecutes matters entrusted to him. Instead of eing condemned under the circumstances, he should e commended. Fairness to oth com'lainant and res'ondent com'els the oser$ation that the latter, as a memer of the ar, is called u'on to e much more careful and meticulous in e6amining the records of a case and noting e$er! 'leading, e$en if as has ha''ened in not a fe# cases, the 'a'ers are not e't in as orderl! a manner as is oth 'ro'er and desirale.
.) ALF%(S% 5ISITACI%( )s. 5ICT%" A(IT s<?stit<te6 ?y his wi6ow LE%(A"DA A(IT an6 6a<ghtersALF%(S% 5ISITACI%( )s. 5ICT%" A(IT s<?stit<te6 ?y his wi6ow LE%(A"DA A(IT an6 6a<ghters
5I"'I(IA D$('%' 5ICT%"IA &A
5I"'I(IA D$('%' 5ICT%"IA &AT$CA( an6 T$CA( an6 E"LI(DE"LI(DA A(ITA A(IT 6efen6ants6efen6antsa44ellants. '.". a44ellants. '.". (o. (o. L/+1L/+1
arch 7 19-9 arch 7 19-9 Facts:
&laintiff Alfonso 8isitacion filed a case against defendant 8ictor anit to hold him liale susidiaril! as em'lo!er for the death of 'laintiff?s son, Delano. Delano?s death #as due to a $ehicular collision in$ol$ing laid defendant?s dri$er Biron, #ho #as found insol$ent after ha$ing een con$icted and sentenced in a 're$ious criminal case arising out of said death. An Ans#er to the com'laint #as filed in due course ! Att!. Barcia on ehalf of defendant. On June 1, 1%, the case #as heard, #ithout defendant or his counsel eing 'resent, and 'laintiff 'resented his e$idence and the case, #as sumitted for decision. Defendant, ho#e$er, filed a motion for ne# trial #hich #as granted ! the trial court. &laintiff 'resented his oral and documentar! e$idence and #as cross@e6amined ! Att!. Barcia. he record further sho#s that Att!. Barcia commenced the 'resentation of e$idence on ehalf of defendant. 7hen the case #as scheduled for continuation of the trial, Att!. Barcia manifested that the srcinal defendant, 8ictor anit had recentl! died, and the trial court on the same date directed him to furnish 'laintiff?s counsel the names of the said defendant?s
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CaCasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 11
heirs, so that 'laintiff could amend the com'laint accordingl!. he onl! amendment in the com'laint consisted in im'leading the #ido# and heirs of the deceased srcinal defendant in sustitution for him. he court admitted the said Amended Com'laint. he case #as again set for hearing #ith notice to the 'arties through their counsels of record.
One da! efore the said hearing, Att!. Barcia filed a 5otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel5, alleging that 5the heirs of 8ictor anit ha$e not hired him to re'resent them and conse/uentl!, his continued a''earance in re'resentation of a dead client #ould e illegal5 and asing the trial court 5that he e relie$ed as counsel in the ao$e@entitled case for the reasons stated herein.5 7hen the case #as called on the ne6t da!, neither defendants nor Att!. Barcia a''eared, and the trial court noting 5defendants? a''arent lac of interest as can e gleaned from the records5 considered them to ha$e renounced their right to a''ear and 'resent e$idence to contest 'laintiff?s claim. It did not 'ass u'on Att!. Barcia?s otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel and 'roceeded to render udgment in fa$or of 'laintiff.
he CA certified the case to the 3C.
Issue: 7O9 Att!. Barcia?s a''eal 5in his ca'acit! as officer of the Court and as former counsel of the deceased 8ictor anit5 is tenale
-eld:
he 3C ruled in the negati$e. he trial Court #as 'erfectl! correct in rel!ing u'on Att!. Barcia?s re'resentation in accordance #ith Rule 1>, section *1 of the Rules of Court #hich 'ro$ides that 5(A)n attorne! is 'resumed to e 'ro'erl! authoriEed to re'resent an! case in #hich he a''ears ....5 his a''eal must accordingl! e dealt #ith as an a''eal on ehalf of said heirs as defendants@a''ellants and not in the 5uni/ue5 conce't #ith #hich Att!. Barcia #ould circumscrie it. he contention that said defendants@a''ellants, as sustituted 'arties@defendants ! $irtue of their eing the heirs of the deceased srcinal defendant should ha$e een rought #ithin the Court?s urisdiction ! summons is fallacious. For the record sho#s that Att!. Barcia at the time acno#ledged recei't of the Amended Com'laint sustituting said defendants@heirs for the deceased srcinal defendant as 5Attorne! for the defendants5, 'resented no o''osition thereto, and furthermore 'ra!ed for and #as granted ! the Court a 'eriod of 1 da!s to file an ans#er to the Amended Com'laint. -a$ing een dul! im'leaded and ha$ing sumitted to the Court?s urisdiction through their counsel, Att!. Barcia, the issuance of a summons #as unnecessar!. Further, the trial court did not err in ignoring the otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel filed ! Att!. Barcia. In the face of Att!. Barcia?s 're$ious re'resentations and a''earance as counsel of record for the sustituted defendants, his last hour motion to #ithdra# as counsel and disclaimer that said defendants ha$e hired him to re'resent them M #hich he filed one da! efore the date set for resum'tion of the hearing M came too late and #as 'ro'erl! ignored ! the Court. -is motion #as not $erified. Aside from the fact that his said motion carried no notice, in $iolation of the re/uirement of the Rules of Court, and could therefore e treated as a 5mere scra' of 'a'er5, the said motion #as lie#ise fatall! defecti$e in that it carried no notice to his clients on record, the defendants@a''ellants, as re/uired ! the Rules of Court. Furthermore, it is #ell settled that 5(A)n attorne! seeing to #ithdra# must mae an a''lication to the court, for the relation does not terminate formall! until there is a #ithdra#al of record4 at least so far as the o''osite 'art! is concerned, the relation other#ise continues until the end of the litigation.5 he trial court?s ignoring of the last@hour motion and its handing do#n of its decision on the da! of the hearing, u'on the failure of defendants and their counsel to a''ear, in s'ite of their ha$ing een dul! notified thereof, #as in effect a denial of counsel?s a''lication for #ithdra#al. Att!. Barcia?s une6'lained failure to a''ear #as une6cusale. -e had no right to 'resume that the Court #ould grant his #ithdra#al. If he had then a''eared and insisted on his #ithdra#al, the trial court could then ha$e had the o''ortunit! to order the a''earance of defendants@a''ellants and $erif! from them the truth of his assertion that the! had not 5hired him to re'resent them.5 he circumstances of the case and the a''eal taen all together lead to the conclusion that the last@ hour #ithdra#al a''lication of Att!. Barcia and his a''eal 5as officer of the Court and then counsel of the deceased5 #as ut a de$ice to 'rolong this case and dela! in the e6ecution of the udgment, #hich should ha$e een carried out !ears ago.
1+. FELIA . DE "%! an6 5I"'ILI% "A%S )s. C%$"T %F AEALS an6 L$IS &E"(AL S". 'LE(IAFELIA . DE "%! an6 5I"'ILI% "A%S )s. C%$"T %F AEALS an6 L$IS &E"(AL S". 'LE(IA
&E"(AL L$IS &E"(AL *". @EI"S %F A"ISSA &E"(AL namely 'LICE"IA DELA C"$ &E"(AL an6 L$IS &E"(AL L$IS &E"(AL *". @EI"S %F A"ISSA &E"(AL namely 'LICE"IA DELA C"$ &E"(AL an6 L$IS &E"(AL S".
&E"(AL S". Facts:
he fire#all of a urned out uilding o#ned ! 'etitioners colla'sed and destro!ed the tailoring sho' occu'ied ! the famil! of the 'ri$ate res'ondents resulting in inuries to 'ri$ate res'ondents had een #arned ! 'etitioners to $acate their sho' in $ie# of its 'ro6imit! to the #eaened #all ut the former failed to do. In the RC, 'etitioners #ere found guilt! of gross negligence. On the last da! of the 1 da!s 'eriod to file an a''eal, 'etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration #hich #as again denied. he 3u'reme Court finds that Court of A''eal did not commit a gra$e ause of discretion #hen it denied 'etitioner<s motion for reconsideration. Counsel for 'etitioner contends that the said case should not e a''lied non@'ulication in the Official BaEette.
I33"2: 7hether or not the 3u'reme Court decisions must e 'ulished in the Official BaEette efore the! can e inding.
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CaCasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 11++
9O.here is no la# re/uiring the 'ulication of 3u'reme Court decision in the Official BaEette efore the! can e inding and as a condition to their ecoming effecti$e. It is ounden dut! of counsel as la#!er in acti$e la# 'ractice to ee' areast of decisions of the 3u'reme Court 'articularl! #here issues ha$e een clarified, consistentl! reiterated and 'ulished in the ad$ance re'orts of 3u'reme Court decisions and in such 'ulications as the 3CRA and la# ournals.
In the instant case, 'etitioners? motion for e6tension of time #as filed on 3e'temer , 1, more than a !ear after the e6'iration of the grace 'eriod on June >+, 1%. -ence, it is no longer #ithin the co$erage of the grace 'eriod. Considering the length of time from the e6'iration of the grace 'eriod to the 'romulgation of the decision of the Court of A''eals on August *, 1, 'etitioners cannot see refuge in the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion for reconsideration #ithin the reglementar! 'eriod
;eginning one month after the 'romulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall e strictl! enforced that no motion for e6tension of time to file a motion for reconsideration ma! e filed #ith the etro'olitan or unici'al rial Courts, the Regional rial Courts, and the Intermediate A''ellate Court. 3uch a motion ma! e filed onl! in cases 'ending #ith the 3u'reme Court as the court of last resort, #hich ma! in its sound discretion either grant or den! the e6tension re/uested.
11. C<aresma )s. Da<is '.". L+811+ arch 8 19/8C<aresma )s. Da<is '.". L+811+ arch 8 19/8
FAC3:
An order to demolish the house of 2ugenio Cuaresma, herein 'etitioner, #as issued. acario Directo, counsel of Cuaresma, filed a 'etition for certiorari and alleged that he has no no#ledge of the e6istence of
the case. -o#e$er, it turned out that 'etitioner and his counsel #ere a#are of the e6istence of the case.
Directo #as gi$en o''ortunit! to sho# cause #h! no disci'linar! action should e taen against him for delieratel! maing false allegations in such 'etition. Directo e6'lained that his no#ledge of the case came onl! after the decision #as issued and that there #as no delierate attem't and intent of misleading the Court.
I33"2: 7hether or not Directo should e suect to disci'linar! actions -2LD:
-e #as merel! re'rimanded. -is e6'lanation is merel! an afterthought. It could e $er! #ell that after his attention #as called to the misstatements in his 'etition, he decided on such $ersion as a #a! out.
oreo$er, udging from the a##ardl! #orded 'etition and e$en his com'liance /uite indicati$e of either carelessness or lac of 'roficienc! in the handling of the 2nglish language, it is not unreasonale to assume that his deficienc! in the mode of e6'ression
contriuted to the inaccurac! of his statements. 7hile a mere disclaimer of intent certainl! cannot e6cul'ate him, still, in the s'irit of charit! and forearance, a 'enalt! of re'rimand #ould
suffice. At least, it #ould ser$e to im'ress on res'ondent that in the future he should e much more careful in the 're'aration of his 'leadings so that the least dout as to his intellectual honest! cannot e entertained. 2$er! memer of the ar should realiEe that candor in the dealings #ith the Court is of the $er! essence of honorale memershi' in the 'rofession.
1*. A$"%"A CAA"A 5DA. DE $&I"I )s. E(CESLA% $&I"I alias &E( ET AL.A$"%"A CAA"A 5DA. DE $&I"I )s. E(CESLA% $&I"I alias &E( ET AL.
FAC3:
Aurora Camara 8da. de Tuiri, filed #ith the Court of First Instance of Lanao del 9orte a com'laint for the reco$er! of her alleged share in t#o commercial lots situated in Iligan Cit! against 7enceslao ;en Tuiri, and the 3tandard 8acuum Oil Co., the occu'ant of 'ortions of the said 'ro'erties. he 'laintiff alleged that the said lots #ere conugal, ha$ing een 'urchased ! her and her late husand during their marriage, so that at least one@half of the same elonged to her 5'lus the e/ual share of the heir or heirs of the decedent.5 oreo$er, the 'laintiff claimed that the said 'arcels #ere in the 'ossession of the defendant #ho, 5unless he can 'ro$e efore this -onorale Court that he is a dul! recogniEed natural child of the late Jesus Tuiri, Qhe has no right, interest, and 'artici'ation #hatsoe$er o$er the ao$ementioned t#o lots.5
Four () 'leadings #ere filed namel!: 1) the herein a''ellant?s ans#er #hich sho#ed on its face that it #as signed ! the latter in his o#n ehalf and unassisted ! counsel4 *) a 3ti'ulation of Facts, signed ! the 'laintiff, assisted ! counsel, and the defendant, #ithout such assistance4 >) a motion to render udgment on the 'leadings, again signed ! the 'laintiff, dul! assisted ! counsel, and the defendant@a''ellant herein, signing alone, #ithout enefit of counsel4
E
ELLSS: : LLeeggaal l EEtthhiiccss CaCasse e DDiiggeesstts s ffoor r FFiinnaal l EExxaammss TTwweennttyy119 9 11==
and ) the defendant 3tandard 8acuum Oil Com'an!?s ans#er to the ao$e com'laint.
rial court rendered udgment in accordance #ith the aforementioned 3ti'ulation of Facts. 3ince in oth the ans#er of the herein defendant@a''ellant and the sti'ulation of facts the latter admitted 'racticall! all the allegations of the com'laint, the decision rendered in accordance there#ith #as actuall! in fa$or of the 'laintiff.
7enceslao Tuiri for the first time thru counsel, filed #ith the trial court a 'etition to set aside udgment u'on t#o grounds, to #it: first, the three 'leadings filed namel!: a''ellant?s ans#er, the sti'ulation of facts and the motion to render udgment on the 'leadings #ere all 're'ared ! the 'laintiff?s counsel and that he, the a''ellant, #as made to sign all of them #hen he #as ill and inca'ale of realiEing the full conse/uences of the act.
7enceslao sees annulment of udgment ased on the allegations to #it: that it #as the 'laintiff?s counsel #ho 're'ared and induced the defendant to sign all the 'leadings u'on #hich the assailed decision #as ased, including and 'articularl! the said defendant?s ans#er, that the dismissal of the same, in the asence of the 'etitioner and #ithout affording him the chance to e heard thereon, indeed #as incom'atile #ith the e6ercise of sound udicial discretion.
I33"2:
7hether or not the la#!er of the 'laintiff can communicate #ith the defendant directl! and testif! u'on the signing of documents
-2LD:
he acti$e 'artici'ation of a la#!er in one 'art!?s affairs relating to a 'ending case in #hich the said la#!er is the counsel for the o''osing 'art! is raEenl! unethical to sa! the least. he Canons of Legal 2thics $er! e6'licitl! declare that 5it is un'rofessional to re'resent conflicting interests5 (9o. %), and command that M
A la#!er should not in an! #a! communicate u'on the suect of contro$ers! #ith a 'art! re'resented ! counsel4 much less should he undertae to negotiate or com'romise the matter #ith him, ut should deal onl! #ith his counsel. It is incument u'on the la#!er most 'articularl! to a$oid e$er!thing that ma! tend to mislead a 'art! not re'resented ! counsel and he should not undertae to ad$ise him as to the la#. (9o. )
As #e ha$e alread! said in the case of Cantorne $. Ducusin, &hil. *>, the simultaneous re'resentation ! a la#!er of oth 'arties to a suit constitutes mal'ractice #hich should e se$erel! condemned and the la#!er corrected ! disci'linar! action. If ut for this consideration alone, the court elo# should ha$e allo#ed the motion for 'ost'onement 'leaded ! the a''ellant and heard the merits of the latter?s 'etition to set aside udgment.
oreo$er, the affida$its of merit a''ended to the 'etition to set aside udgment recited that the defendant@a''ellant #as seriousl! sic at the time he #as made to sign and s#ear to the ao$e three re'udiated 'leadings. o e sure, no less than the officer efore #hom the said 'leadings #ere suscried and s#orn to admitted that this $erification #as conducted at the a''ellant?s residence in Ceu #here the latter #as confined 5suffering from fe$er, #ith an ice ca' on his head and 'rofusel! 'ers'iring.5 "nder the circumstances, therefore, the mental ca'acit! of the a''ellant to res'onsil! assent to commitments set forth in the same three 'leadings ecame doutful and the trial court should ha$e e6erted its earnest efforts to resol$e the dout. 2s'eciall! so #hen account is taen of the fact that the suect matter of the suit #as not ust an insustantial sum ut 'ro'erties allegedl! #orth some &1%,+++.++.
I9 8I27 OF ALL -2 FOR2BOI9B, the order of the court elo# den!ing the a''ellant?s 'etition to set aside udgment is here! re$oed and set aside.
1>. Del<ao )s. CasteelDel<ao )s. Casteel
Facts:
9icanor Casteel filed a fish'ond a''lication for a ig tract of s#am'! land. 3'ouses Inocencia Deluao and Feli'e Deluao entered into a contract of ser$ice #ith 9icanor Casteel for the administration of fishfond. In a decision of the 3ecretar! of Agriculture and 9atural Resources Casteel #as a#arded #ith the suect fish'ond. hereafter, 9icanor Casteel forade Inocencia Deluao from further administering the fish'ond, and eected the latter?s re'resentati$e from the 'remises. Conse/uentl!, s'ouses Deluao filed a ci$il case for s'ecific 'erformance and damages against Casteel. After the issues #ere oined, the case #as set for trial. hen came a series of 'ost'onements. he lo#er court (;ranch
I, 'resided ! Judge 2nri/ue A. FernandeE) finall! issued on arch *1, 1% an order in
o'en court transferring the hearing to a! * and >, 1% at :>+ o?cloc in the morning. And considering the case #as 'ending since A'ril >, 11 and under an! circumstance the Court #ill not entertain an! other transfer of hearing of this case and if the 'arties #ill not e read! on that da! set for hearing, the court #ill tae the necessar! ste's for the final determination of this case.