BLOQUE: MANEJO EN CÁNCER METASTÁSICO

Yes. Having admitted that they bought the property from Central Dyeing, Eternal Gardens is the former’s successor-in-interest who will be bound by the judgment. Moreover, being a transferee, it does not have to be included or impleaded by name in an action against the transferor—according to the Rules of Court.

As to the fear that owners of the grave lots will be disturbed by the writ, the order of the court shows that it took into account the interests of such lot owners—in fact certain limits were provided. Hence, the execution of the judgment need not necessarily desecrate these properties.

*what’s relevant to ethics:

The case has delayed the execution of a final judgment for 17 years. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their client’s rights, they should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, or impede the execution of a judgment.

65 SPS GALEN v PAGUIRIGAN

Spouses Galen, Rasdas and Villa (COMPLAINANTS) were defendants in a civil case for recovery of a residential lot.

PAGUIRIGAN was their attorney. Judgment was rendered in favor of the COMPLAINANTS. Trusting in the able

representation of Atty PAGUIRIGAN, the COMPLAINANTS continued the services of the said lawyer when the plaintiff in the civil case appealed.

The COMPLAINANTS were informed that the CA reversed the trial court’s decision. Upon inquiry in the CA, the COMPLAINANTS found out Atty PAGUIRIGAN failed to file an appellees’ brief in their behalf. When COMPLAINANTS confronted PAGUIRIGAN, the lawyer assured them that he would seek a review of the decision of the CA. The COMPLAINANTS gave PAGUIRIGAN P10,000 for docket fees.

On Oct 14, 1997, PAGUIRIGAN filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari which the SC granted in its resolution dated Nov 19, 1997. On Nov 20, 1997, PAGUIRIGAN filed the petition. However, it was denied for having been filed out of time, the due date being Nov 14, 1997. Subsequently, the COMPLAINANTS were surprised to receive a writ of execution issued by the trial court.

Hence, this petition.

PAGUIRIGAN alleges that he agreed to represent the COMPLAINANTS without remuneration when their former counsel withdrew, that he did not file an appellees brief since the filing of the same though required is not mandatory and that the Court granted his motion for extension belatedly, considering that the 30 day extension was to expire on Nov 14, 1997 but the SC acted on it only on Nov 19, 1997.

ISSUE W/N PAGUIRIGAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR NEGLIGENCE

HELD YES, FOR FAILING TO FILE PETITION AFTER BEEN GRANTED EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGUIRIGAN was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties. He admits that he failed to file the appellees’ brief which just shows the cavalier attitude he took towards his clients’ cause. Although the failure to file the appellee’s brief in a case is not a ground for an adverse ruling, the importance of filing an appellees’ brief cannot be gainsaid because upon appeal, the appellate court, can only place great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties. Thus, the failure to submit these pleadings could very well be fatal to the cause of the client.

To make matters worse, PAGUIRIGAN did not only fail to file an appellees’ brief but after being granted a 30 day extension

of the time to file a petition for review of the decision of the CA, he again lost through default by failing to file said petition.

And PAGUIRIGAN’S allegation about the SC’s belated action on the petition only succeeds in showing his ignorance of 2 basic principles: first, that a party cannot presume that his motion will be granted, and, second, that any extension granted is always counted from the last day of the reglementary period which is Oct 14, 1997 (not from the day the resolution was dated).

PAGUIRIGAN is thus guilty of violation of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides “a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda and briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.”

Hence, PAGUIRIGAN is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and ordered to refund the COMPLAINANTS P10,000 with a warning that repitition of the same act will be dealt with even more severely.

66 SANTIAGO v RAFANAN

Assignment no. 11

Santiago vs. Rafanan – Lopez Facts:

 This administrative complaint was brought by Jonar Santiago against Atty. Edison Rafanan, a notary public, because of the latter’s failure to (a) make the proper notation regarding the community tax certificate of the affiants; (b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and (c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the Revised Administrative Code.

 Santiago also points out that Rafanan made an affidavit in favor of his (Rafanan) client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he (Rafanan) was actively representing his client.

 The IBP found Rafanan guilty of violating the requirements of the Notarial Law and imposed a fine of 3,000.

Issue:

 W/n Rafanan’s acts were contrary to law.

Held:

 SC says yes. It is mandated by the Notarial Law that a notary public should enter the number, place of issue and date of the Community Tax Certificate of the affiant in his affidavit. The law also says that a notary public should keep a notarial register to record all affidavits they have notarized. They are required to enter the number of the register and the page where a particular affidavit has been recorded. These requirements are mandatory due to the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. Having violated these requirements, Rafanan should be fined.

 As to the affidavit executed by Rafanan in favor of his client, the SC says that this is in violation of Rule 12.08 of Canon 12, which says that a lawyer should avoid testifying in behalf of his own client. The SC explained that appearing both as counsel and witness of a client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested. Obviously, if a lawyer appears as client and counsel, people would automatically think that his testimony as a witness is biased in favor of his client.

 Despite of this, Rafanan cannot be made administratively liable. First, the SC considered that it is the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense for the benefit of the client. Thus, in defense of his client, Rafanan is supposed to do everything in his power. Since, he is a witness to the crime, his affidavit is essential to the defense of his client. What he should have done though was to exempt himself from being counsel. This would ensure his credibility as a witness.

 In the end, because of his violation of the Notarial Laws and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

Rafanan is fined 3,000.

67 BERBANO v BARCELONA

Facts: The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty. Daen as their atty.-in-fact. Atty. Daen was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. The heirs of Hilapo tried to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. Daen. The heirs were recommended to Atty. Barcelona. When the spouses visited Atty. Daen, they learned that Atty. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty. Barcelona. Atty. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty. Daen the next day. Because the heirs could not produce the total amount, they merely gave P15,700.

There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. Barcelona regarding the “grease money” to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice. The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24,000. On another occasion, the heirs went to the house of Atty. Barcelona and gave P10,000. The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. Barcelona reached P64,000.

Commissioner Bautista found Atty. to be guilty of malpractice and breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred.

Issue: W/N Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.

Held: Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.

Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Its intention is to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the misconduct of the officers of the court.

In this case, Atty. demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that he had connections to secure the release of Atty. Daen. Atty. Barcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty.

Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, Atty. Barcelona demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a member of this court.

68 ALMARVEZ v PAAS

Facts:

 Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged Almarvez, a Court Aide/Utility Worker, with discourtesy to his fellow employees, neglect in performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness around the court premises and often being absent from work), and solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving them their Release Orders, and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential information in advance of its unauthorized release).



The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by evidence since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were not presented at the hearings. The only offense which Almarvez was found to commit was inefficiency in the discharge of his duties. Thus he was suspended for 3 months.



Almarvez had filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative complaint against him. Regarding this, the court held that this elicits the

suspicion the Judge is just fishing for more evidence to support the administrative case she had already filed against Almarvez. This was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary, for which Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded.

 In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was found that Judge Paas’ husband, Atty.

Paas, who is a private practitioner, was using his wife’s office address in his law practice, particularly in a criminal case he was handling which was docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. In support of this charge, documents were submitted such as 1) a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty. Paas, and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC, and from the Supreme Court

 This was admitted by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done only to ensure and facilitate the delivery of those notices.

Issue: W/N Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be penalized for allowing the latter to use the office of the former as his return address in his private practice.

Held: YES

 Using the Judge’s address is a subtle was of sending a message that Atty. Paas is the husband of a judge in the same building and should be given special treatment by other judges or court personnel.

 In SC Administrative Circular No. 01-99, it was stated that court officials and employees must “never use their offices…for any other purpose that for court or judicial functions.”

 Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in all activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others.

 SC Circular No. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes.

 It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer’s prestige. It violates canons 3, 10, 13, and 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 Atty. Paas is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law, while Judge Paas shall pay a fine of P12,000

69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS:

 From July 8-10, union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union, who filed a case in court intensified their pickets that they had been conducting since June 17 in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC

 Despite of the warning given by the court to their leaders and counsel, the picketing continued

 The union members are obstructing the access to and egress from the court’s premises. They have also constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set up kitchens and littered the place. they took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers

ISSUE:

 W/N the rallyists must be held with contempt HELD:

 The contempt charges were dismissed

 The Counsel of the union members apologized to the court and promised that the incident will not be repeated again

 The picketing was actually done by the members of the PAMANTIK (Pagkakaisa ng MAnggagawa sa Timog Katalugan), an unregistered loose allegiance of about 75 unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union.

 But the court will not hesitate in future similar incidents to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the court to acting one way or the other in any case pending before it.

 The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.

 Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection, and that any such efforts to influence the court constitutes contempt of court.

70 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:

 Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly known as ACCRA)

 ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or simply as stockholders

 As members of the law firm, petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. 0033. In keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders. Anong kalokohan yan?

o Civil Case No. 0033 – “RP v. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al.”, for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of stock in certain corporations



PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3^rd amended complaint, which excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals.

 The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they should also be removed the way that Roco was.

 PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the identity of their clients

 During the proceedings, Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder

 The ACCRA lawyer’s motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply with the PCGG’s offer) by the PCGG and the court. Hence, this motion for certiorari

Issue:

 W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case Held:

 Yes. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to disclose the identity of their clients.

 PCGG has no valid cause of action Issue:

 W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients Held:

 General rule: a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery

o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice

o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability

o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime

 The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the defense

 Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client and is part of legitimate lawyering.

The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped.

In re: Canon 14

 the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary

 the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client

71 DAROY v LEGASPI

FACTS:

 Complainants charged Atty. Ramon Chavez- Legaspi with malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of P4,000.00 which he had collected for them. They prayed that he be disbarred

 FACTUAL EVIDENCE: Complainants hired Atty. Legaspi to represent them in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the spouses Gonzaga. The complainant-heirs in a joint petition, which Atty. Legaspi signed as counsel agreed that the coconut land left by the decedents would be divided into 6 equal parts and that the proceeds of the sale of the land would be distributed among them.

 Atty. Legaspi wrote to the father of Mrs. Daroy, Teofilo Legaspi that the money deposited could be withdrawn.

However, Atty. Legaspi had already withdrawn the money (therefore he acted in bad faith). It turned out that Atty.

Legaspi was also an heir (although it wasn’t shown how).

ISSUE: WoN Atty. Legaspi should be disbarred because he violated the relation between attorney and his client?

HELD: YES!

RATIO:

1. The relation between an atty and his client is higly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. In view of that special relationship, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands collected for his clients does not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received.

2. The complainants, however, have to recover the money in an ordinary action, and not in this disbarment proceeding.

72 DEE v CA

Dee and his father went to the residence of Atty Mutuc to seek his advice regarding the problem of the alleged

indebtedness of petitioner’s brother Dewey Dee, to Ceasar’s Palace. Petitioner’s father was apprehensive over the safety of his son, Dewey having heard of a link between the mafia and Ceasar’s Palace and his possibility that his son may be harmed at the instance of the latter.

Atty Mutuc assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter, after which his services were reportedly contracted for P100,000.

Further investigations revealed that the alleged debt of Dewey had actually been incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey

Further investigations revealed that the alleged debt of Dewey had actually been incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey

In document CALI - COLOMBIA GUÍA DE MANEJO PARA EL DIAGNÓSTICO, TRATAMIENTO, SEGUIMIENTO Y PALIACIÓN DEL CÁNCER DE COLON Y RECTO. (página 43-46)