A lawyer must be a disciple of truth
He swore upon his admission that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court
As officer of the court, his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct conclusion
The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them
His a lawyer’s solemn duty is to defend his client, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth
In the case at bar, BATUEGAS, et al feel short of the duties and responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar
Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered
To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns
BATUEGAS, et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception
Hence, BATUEGAS, et al should be suspended for 6 months 56 HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO v FLORIDO
Facts:
Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido (H-F) filed this administrative complaint against her husband James Florido for violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and usng a spurious and bogus CA resolution/order.
H-F admits that she and her husband live separately. They have two children. Sometime in Dec. 2001, Florido went to H-F’s house and showed her a photocopy of a resolution issued by the CA apparently giving to Florido the legal custody of their children. H-F doubted the authenticity of the CA resolution so she did not give her children to Florido.
Then in 2002, while H-F and her children were in the ABC Learning Center, Florido arrived accompanied by armed men. Florido demanded that H-F surrender custody of their children to him. H-F, fearing for her children’s safety, called the police. In the police station, H-F agreed to let the children sleep with Florido just for one night at a hotel. But when H-F heard of news that Florido was planning to take the children to Bacolod, she immediately took them away.
Florido then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the CA resolution he presented to H-F earlier. This petition was dismissed because Florido did not appear and H-F presented a certification from the CA that there was no resolution granting Florido with legal custody of their children.
Thus, this present action. The IBP has recommended that Florido be suspended from the practice of law for 6 years.
Issue:
W/n Florido should be held liable for his actions.
Held:
SC says that Florido should be held liable. He violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01 and 10.02, by his act of making up a spurious CA resolution and using such false resolution to his aadvantage.
The SC thinks that suspension of 6 years is too much so they lowered the penalty to just a 2-year suspension.
57 ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Atty. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo. Atty. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court should inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from participating in partisan political activities. According the Atty. Paguia, the justices have violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and authorizing the assumption of office by President Arroyo.
The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of Atty. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against Estrada. Atty. Paguia attacked the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo by saying: similar in the decisions involving admin. agencies, if the act of the justices is lawful, it is the act of the Supreme Court, and if the act of the judges is not lawful, it is not the act of the Supreme Court. As such, Atty.
Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo being unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct, is not the act of the SC.
Atty. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast and print media. For that reason, the court asked him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.
Issue: W/N Atty. Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming.
Held: Atty. Paguia is sanctioned. He is indefinitely suspended from practice of law.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
58 TIONGCO v AGUILAR (Canon 10 Morada) Facts:
Atty. Tiongco filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a review of a lower court’s decision.
The petition contained malicious and intemperate language. Tiongco stated that the decision of the trial court Judge was “crafted to fool the winning party,” “a hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favor,” “it was the devil who dictated it,” “the Judge was confused, being born and raised amongst the non-propertied class”
Tiongco also filed a pleading with the SC stating that “it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition and hold that the same failed to sufficiently show that the respondent Court had committed grave abuse of discretion.”
In a previous resolution, the SC required Atty. Jose B. Tiongco to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for the violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In Tiongco’s Compliance, he alleges that the SC failed to mention that he also called the judge a “robber,” “a rotten manipulator,” and “abetter of graft and shady deals.”
Issue:
W/N Tiongco must be held administratively liable.
Held: YES
Atty. Tiongco did not at all show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively. While Tiongco tried to justify as true his descriptions of the Judge as “liar,” “thief,” “perfidious,” and “blasphemer,” he did not offer any excuse for the other intemperate words and phrases he used. Neither did he show their relevance to the petition.
By insinuating that this Court did not at all read the petition, Tiongco exhibited gross disrespect and attempted to discredit the Members of the First Division. He charged them with violating their duty to render justice, and he thereby promoted distrust in judicial administration.
He also showed disrespect to and contempt for the respondent judge, thereby diminishing public confidence in the latter and in the judiciary.
Although a lawyer has the right—even the duty—to criticize the courts, this right must be exercised responsibly.
The criticism must be bona fide, without using language that would tend to create or promote distrust in judicial administration and undermine the people’s confidence in the integrity of the members of this Court.
59 RHEEM OF THE PHILS v FERRER
FACTS:
The SC issued an order directing Atty. Armonio and the senior partners in his law firm to show to cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court
The law firm of Ponce Enrile. Sigiuon Reyne, etc. argued that:
o It has never been their intent to be disrespectful
o It was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Atty. Armonio who thought best to focus the attention of the court to the issue in the case and was not in any way meant to slight or offend the court.
o It was because Atty. Armonio became emotionally involved in the case
o Not one of the partners was able to pass upon the draft or final form of the said motion, and that Atty.
Armonio, an associate, prepared, signed and filed the motion without clearing it with any one of the partner of the firm
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Armonio and the partners in his firm must be held in contempt because of the disrespectful language contained of the pleading prepared by Atty. Armonio.
HELD:
The SC decided that Atty. Armonio be warned that repetition of the incident will be dealt with more severely and that necessary attention must be employed by the partners in exercising adequate supervision and control of the pleadings submitted by its associate
The pleading which contained “one pitfall into which this court has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations comes into question” and the sweeping charge that the decisions of this court“blindly adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statues” implies that the court is so patently inept in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial court, it has committed error and continuously repeated that error to the point of perpetuation.
Implicit in the quoted statement is that the pronouncements of this court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court are not entitled to respect. It detract much from the dignity of and respect due this court.
It is the duty of lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. It is his obligation to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbents of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.
It is proscribes to use unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration, or which could have the effect of “harboring or encouraging discontent which, in many cases, us the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power .”
The claim of Atty. Armonio that his statements was not in any way meant to slight or offend this court, want of intention is no excuse for the language employed. One cannot escape responsibility by claiming his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning.
60 ANDRES v CABRERA Facts:
Stanley R. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977.
Atty. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She dismissed a case filed by Cabrera’s mother against a certain Atty. Perez.
Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal charges against Andres (graft and corruption, falsification of public documents)
Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Cabrera apparently used in his affidavit vile, incivil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic, unparalleled stupidity, idiotic)
Cabrera’s oath-taking was therefore postponed. The SC required him to file an answer to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabrera’s reply he still used unfit language (e.g. calling Atty. Andres a moron). In subsequent motions by Cabrera, he used the words “a victim of the court’s inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction”
1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath-taking until he has shown that he has changed his ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court. And guess what, he still used unfit language (e.g. supreme stupidity, degradation of the administration of justice)
Napikon yata yung SC, they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he should not be held in contempt. Cabrera filed an apology but guess what, the language he used were still unfit and even insincere.
Issue:
W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt Held:
Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days.
The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Their failure to discharge such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney.
Pikon yung Supreme Court, huwag niyo silang subukan.
61 COBB-PEREZ v LANTIN FACTS:
Ricardo Hermoso commenced a civil case against Damaso Perez and Gregorio Sumbong, for recovery of sum of P17,309.44 representing unpaid purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturing business of Hermoso. Judgment was rendered in favor of Hermoso, ordering the defendants to be held jointy and severally liable.
The Sheriff of Manila levied upon the shares of common stock registered in Damaso Perez’name with the Republic Bank.
Petitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the execution of judgment. (and they managed to have the
sale suspended 6x)
o They alleged that levy was highly excessive and unjust
o Even the wife of Damaso Perez, filed to lift the writ of execution alleging that the shares of stock were conjugal assets and that the debt was a personal obligation.
ISSUE: WoN petitioners restored to tricky, sneaky and maneuvering tactics to thwart the ends of justice?
HELD: YES RATIO:
1. During the protracted litigation, the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at some stages
alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Some of the actions were filed, only to be abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice.
62 MAGAT v SANTIAGO Facts:
For delaying the termination of an unlawful detainer case by filing multiple petitions before the SC, involving the same subject matters and cause of action, which were attempts by the same party and his counsel to delay enforcement of a judgment that has long become final and executory, the SC suspended Atty Magat from the practice of law .
The court in ruling for the suspension of Magat stated that a lawyer owes the duty of good faith and honorable dealing to the judicial tribunal before whom he practices his profession. Inherent in that obligation is the duty to assist in the speedy disposition of cases.
Atty Magat and members of his family is now praying for judicial clemency, expressing their profound regret for his past misconduct and his avowal ot amend his ways, in view if the said family's financial and economic difficulties to his inability to earn his livelihood as a lawyer. This plea has been reiterated for a period of more than 2 years since his suspension.
Issue:
W/n the suspension should be terminated...
Held:
YES. The court is satisfied that Magat appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured the court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necesary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law.
63 MILLARE v MONTERO
Facts:
(RC Note: The first part of the case is pointless. It just wants to impress on you that Atty. Montero used procedure to circumvent the administration of justice)
Pacfica Millare, the mother of the complainant, obtained a favorable judgment against Elsa Co. The case was for ejectment filed with the MTC.
The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 1986.
Numerous appeals/complaints/petitions were filed to frustrate the execution of the MTC judgment. The summary of which is in page 8. There is no need to know what they are though.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Montero’s acts are justified.
Held:
No.
Montero should be suspended for one year, as recommended by the IBP which found him guilty of malpractice.
Judging from the number of actions filed, Montero is also guilty of forum shopping.
By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favorable judgment, which efforts were all rebuffed, respondents violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under the laws.
Montero has made a mockery of the judicial process. And disregarded the canons in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case was rendered: thus abused procedural rules to defeat the ends of substantial justice.
64 ETERNAL GARDENS v CA
Facts:
Seelin spouses filed a case against Central Dyeing for quieting of title. The spouses won and the decision in their favor became final an executory.
When the spouses filed a Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession, Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp opposed claiming that it is the true and registered owner of the property—having bought the same from Central Dyeing in good faith. It also argued that it was not bound by the decision since it was not impleaded in the case.
But the trial court favored the spouses and dismissed Eternal Garden’s claim since the judgment (in the queting of title case) was binding upon the latter, being the successor-in-interest of Central Dyeing. The CA, on the same grounds, denied Eternal Garden’s appeal.
So Seelin spouses filed for a second writ of execution. Dahil sa makulit (not to mention optimistic) si Eternal Gardens, nag-file pa ito ulit ng motion reconsideration. It further contended that since there is a pending issue on possession (a different case), such should first be resolved before a writ of possession be issued to the spouses.
Said motion was initially granted but was later denied. So nag-file ng certiorari si Eternal sa CA. And of course, they filed the case to the SC, essentially with the same arguments.