Legal Ethics Digests Print

8/20/2019 Legal Ethics Digests Print

1/61

ELS: Legal Ethics Case Digests for Final Exams Twenty

I. LA!E"#S FID$CIA"! %&LI'ATI%(S(Laarnie Llamas)

1. Angeles )s. $y *r. ++, SC"A - 1/ 0,,,2

Facts: In a letter addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice, Judge Angeles of the RC of Caloocan Cit! cha 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'onunder the sala of udge com'lainant. Accused further alleged that she 'aid &*+,+++.++ directl! to the '

com'lainant and the alance of &1%,++.++ #as deli$ered to Att!. "!, Jr., the la#!er of the 'ri$ate com'lainantconformal! 'roduced in o'en court the recei't for such 'a!ment signed ! no less than the aforesaid la#-o#e$er, 'ri$ate com'lainant manifested that she did not recei$e the amount 'aid to his la#!er, herein res'onthere! constraining the court to direct res'ondent to turn o$er the mone! to 'ri$ate com'lainant #hich he recei$trust for the client. Att!. "! ho#e$er argued that his client did not lie to acce't the mone! ut the assertion ola#!er #as elied ! his o#n client, the herein 'ri$ate com'lainant, #ho manifested in o'en court her #illingneacce't the mone!. he Court again directed Att!. "! to 'roduce the mone! ut the latter argued that he e't it ioffice. Conse/uentl!, the Court sus'ended the 'roceedings to enale Att!. "! to get the mone! from his la# o#hich is located onl! at the second floor of the same uilding #here this court is located. -o#e$er, res'ondent dsho# 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!good faith. It is designed 5to remo$e all such tem'tation and to 're$ent e$er!thing of that ind from eing done fo'rotection of the client.5 hus, Canon 1% of the Code of &rofessional Res'onsiilit! 'ro$ides that 5a la#!er shall htrust all mone!s and 'ro'erties of his client that ma! come into his 'ossession.5 Furthermore, Rule 1%.+1 of the Calso states that 5a la#!er shall account for all mone! or 'ro'ert! collected or recei$ed for or from the client.5Canons of &rofessional 2thics is e$en more e6'licit: 5he la#!er should refrain from an! action #here! fo'ersonal enefit or gain he auses or taes ad$antage of the confidence re'osed in him ! his client.In the 'resent case, it is clear that res'ondent failed to 'rom'tl! re'ort and account for the &1%,++ he had recefrom raano on ehalf of his client. Although the amount had een entrusted to res'ondent, his client re$ealed dthe 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 acno#ledged that she had recei$ed it. he! do sho#, ho#e$er, that res'ondent failed to 'rom'tl! re'ort that amto her. his is clearl! a $iolation of his 'rofessional res'onsiilit!. It is settled that mone! collected ! a la#!er in of his clients must e immediatel! turned o$er to them and that la#!ers are ound to 'rom'tl! account for mon

'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 #hethe

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

Facts:Jose 9a'il #as interested in a 'iece of 'ro'ert! situated in oran, ;aguio. -e #ent into an agreement Att!. Carlos 8aldes for thelatter to u! the 'ro'ert! in trust for 9a'il. 8aldes did u! the 'ro'ert! ! contractloans. he lands< titles #ere transferred to his name.7hen Jose 9a'il died, Imelda 9a'il (his #ife) ac/uiredser$ices of 8aldes and his accounting and la# firms for the settlement of the estate of Jose 9a'il. 7hat 8alde#as to e6clude the 'ro'ert! in ;aguio from thelist of assets of Jose 9a'il (he actuall! transferred the 'ro'ert! tcom'an!, the Ca$al Realt! Cor'oration) #hile including the loans he contracted.7hat Imelda did #as to file a surecon$e!ance in the CFI.7hile the case #as 'ending, Imelda also filed an administrati$e com'laintf or disar

against 8aldes. he CFI dismissed the action for recon$e!ance. he CA re$ersed the CFI.he com'lainrecon$e!ance #ent u' to the 3C and #as decided in fa$or of 9a'il. he 3C held that 8aldes onl! held the lots infor 9a'il.

Issue:7=n Att!. 8aldes should e administrati$el! sanctioned for hisacts, namel!:o 26cluding the 'ro'ert! in ;afrom 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 cred

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#oclearl! sho# that 8aldes roe the trust re'osed on him ! Imelda 9a'il #hen the latter agreed to us'rofessional ser$ices as a la#!er and an accountant. As to the third charge, #e hold res'ondent guilt! of re'rese

conflicting interests #hich is 'roscried ! Canon 1 Rule1.+>. In the case at ar, there is no /uestion tha


2/61


interests of the estate and that of its creditors are ad$erse to each other. Res'ondent?s accounting firm 're'aredlist of assets and liailities of the estate and, at the same time,com'uted the claims of t#o creditors of the eshere is clearl! a conflict et#een the interests of the estate #hich stands.

>. Liwag )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! FidCom'an! in a ond 'osted for the &inedas in fa$or of 9ARIC. 7hen the &inedas failed to li/uidate their oligation

9ARIC enforced the ond against the anila 3uret! Fidelit! Com'an! and the latter in turn collected fromcom'lainant. -a$ing failed to collect from the &inedas, the com'lainant engaged the ser$ices of the res'ondentagreed 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 lettdemand, threatening to tae udicial action if the &Inedas #ould still not meet their oligation. he com'lainant gi$res'ondent the needed filing fee for the com'laint. he res'ondent did not actuall! file an! com'laint, althouginformed the com'lainant that he alread! done so. It did not tae long efore the truth #as disco$ered and eforcom'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$e that the &is'ouses had alread! een sued in court and did not return the amount intended for the filing fee.Considering ho#e$er, that the res'ondent has not !et recei$ed an!thing for his ser$ices and that the com'lainansuse/uentl! een 'aid, disarment or e$en sus'ension of the res'ondent from the 'ractice of his 'rofession #e too harsh and unind. he res'ondent #as re'rimanded for his offense, #ith the #arning that a re'etition of smisconduct or an! $iolation of his oath #ill e dealt #ith more drasticall!.

. Dia )s. ;a4


3/61


• 26ecution sales should e o'en to free and full com'etition in order to secure the ma6imum e

of the detor.• he Court concluded that Att!. Ga'unan has een guilt! of a technical $iolation of art. * of the &enal C

• -o#e$er, since the com'lainant is e/uall! guilt! #ith the res'onded Ga'unan and the latter #as found t

acting in good faith, Ga'unan shall onl! e re'rimanded.. 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

against L R Cor'oration. . #o !ears later, and #ith no imminent end to the litigation in sight, the 'arties entereda com'romise agreement #here! L R Cor'oration accorded the 'ri$ate res'ondent another !ear to redeemforeclosed 'ro'erties suect to 'a!ment of &%++,+++.++, #ith interest thereon at one 'er cent 'er month. lie#ise sti'ulated that the 'etitioner shall e entitled to attorne!?s fees of &1++,+++.++. On 9o$emer 1, 1*court a''ro$ed the com'romise.he 'ri$ate res'ondent, ho#e$er, remained in dire financial straits for #hich reason he failed to ac/uire the findire'a! the loans in /uestion, let alone the sum of &1++,+++.++ in attorne!?s fees demanded ! the 'etitioner. not#ithstanding, the 'etitioner mo$ed for e6ecution insofar as his fees #ere concerned. he court granted e6ecualthough it does not a''ear that the sum #as actuall! collected.3ometime thereafter, the 'etitioner and the 'ri$ate res'ondent met to discuss relief for the latter #ith res'ect tliailit! to L R Cor'oration on the one hand, and his oligation to the 'etitioner on the other. he 'ri$ate res'onsaid that it #as the 'etitioner himself #ho ?offered to ad$ance the mone!,5 'ro$ided that he, the 'ri$ate res'one6ecuted a 5transfer of mortgage5 o$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=Redeem,5 a document that enaled the 'etitioner, first, to redeem the 'arcels in /uestion, and secondl!, to registesame in his name. he 'ri$ate res'ondent contends that the 5Deed of 3ale and ransfer of Rights of Redemand=or to Redeem5 on file #ith the Register of Deeds (for KueEon Cit!) had een falsified. "'on learning of the sthe 'etitioner mo$ed for the cancellation of the ad$erse claim and for the issuance of a #rit of 'ossession. he cgranted oth motions. he 'ri$ate res'ondent countered #ith a motion for a tem'orar! restraining order and latmotion 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#!erAnent attome!?s 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$erhis client no more than a reasonale com'ensation for his ser$ices, #ith a $ie# to the im'ortance of the suect mof the contro$ers!, the e6tent of the ser$ices rendered, and the 'rofessional standing of the attorne!... A #r

contract for ser$ices shall control the amount to e 'aid therefor unless found ! the court to e unconscionaunreasonale.3o also it is decreed ! Article **+ of the Ci$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 & >*%,+++.++, asfor damages. he 'etitioner is also ordered to sho# cause to not im'ose a disci'linar! action on him for $iolation oath as a la#!er.

%. Ca4


4/61


the docet fees and other re/uired fees.he s'ouses then filed an administrati$e case against Att!. AliNo. In his defense, Att!. AliNo claimed that he #as the o'tion to either use the mone! for a''eal if in his udgment an a''eal is 'ro'er or to a''ro'riate the same folegal ser$ices. he in$estigating fiscal recommended disci'linar! action against Att!. AliNo. he 3olicitor Beagreed #ith the fiscal. 7hen the case reached the 3u'reme Court, Att!. AliNo manifested his intent to 'roadditional e$idence. he 3C granted his re/uest ut, after four 'ost'onements #hich Att!. AliNo ased for, he still to adduce additional e$idence #ithin the 'rescrie 'eriod. he 3C still ga$e him a chance and scheduled anargument ut again, Att!. AliNo ased for 'ost'onement. In lieu of the oral argument, the 3C re/uired AliNo to shis 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! filea''eal, hence, he should ha$e a''lied the mone! gi$en to him to 'a! for the docet fees. It is clear that 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 continuall! failed to com'l! #ith the orders of the court. 3uch dis'la! of irres'onsiilit! indicates his un#orthinessmemer of the legal 'rofession. AliNo #as disarred ! the 3u'reme Court.

. Cale>o ). Soriano

. enticostes )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, IaneE #as gi$en ! the sister@in@la# of &enticostes &1,+ as 'a!ment of her 333 contriution arrearsaid res'ondent did not remit the amount to the s!stem. Com'lainant filed #ith the RC a com'lain'rofessional misconduct against IaneE due to the latter


5/61


#as later re@instated u'on 3al$ador #as referred, dismissed the 'etition, he again 5inad$ertentl!5 failed to file an ans#er due to homistae and ecause of his o$erEealousness as stated earlier. &etitioner contends that the res'ondent thereof #hich 'ro$5A la#!er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there#ith shall rendeliale.5

*.) 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%*. charged #ith deceit, fraud, and misre'resentation, and also #ith gross misconduct, mal'ractice and of 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 not$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 #hadescried as a 5Qhastil! 're'ared, 'oorl! concei$ed, and ha'haEardl! com'osed 'etition for annulment of udgme

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


6/61


1.+* S A la#!er shall not decline, e6ce't for serious and sufficient cause, an a''ointment as counsel de oficio amicus curiae or a re/uest from the Integrated ;ar of the &hili''ines or an! of its cha'ters for rendition of free 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 out the #or effecti$el! or com'letel!4 () he laors under conflict of interest et#een him and the 'resent clienthe 'ros'ecti$e client.

1.+ S A la#!er #ho acce'ts the cause of a 'erson unale to 'a! his 'rofessional fees shall oser$e the s

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 #ithdracounsel ! reason of their friendshi'.

Later, Cantiller 'aid &otenciano &*,+++.++ as demanded ! the latter #hich #as allegedl! needed to e 'aanother udge #ho #ill issue the restraining order ut e$entuall! &otenciano did not succeed in locating the udge

Com'lainant 'aid & 1+,+++.++ to &otenciano ! $irtue of the demand of the latter. he amount #as allegedl! tde'osited #ith the reasurer?s Office of &asig as 'urchase 'rice of the a'artment and & 1,+++.++ to co$ee6'enses of the suit needed in order for the com'lainant to retain the 'ossession of the 'ro'ert!. ;ut later on Canfound out that the amounts #ere not necessar! to e 'aid. A demand #as made against &otenciano ut the lattenot ans#er and the amounts #ere not returned.

Contrar! to &otenciano.) "%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 ord2lsa D! Co to $acate the 'remises suect of the eectment case (Ci$il Case 9o. ). Co, through res'ondecounsel, a''ealed the decision to the RC. 3he neither filed a su'ersedeas ond nor 'aid the rentals adudged

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*3ection **() of the Interim Rules and Buidelines. According to the CA, Co should ha$e filed a 'etition for re$ie#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 inCase 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 C;angued, Ara, #ith the Regional rial Court, Ara4

(*) [email protected]. C8 9o. 11+ M A''eal from the decision of the Regional rial Court, Ara4


7/61


(>) [email protected]. 3& 9o. 11%+ M An Action For the Annulment of Decisions And=Or Reformation or 9o$atiDecisions filed #ith the Court of A''eals4

() B.R. 9o. %+ M &etition For Re$ie# On Certiorari filed #ith the 3u'reme Court4

() [email protected]. 3& 9o. 1++ M A''eal And=Or Re$ie# ;! Certiorari, 2tc. filed also #ith the Court of A''eals4 a

(%) 3& Ci$il Action 9o. %* M &etition For Certiorari, &rohiition, andamus #ith &reliminar! Issuan

&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 o

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#ithinounds of the la#.5 he Code enoins a la#!er to em'lo! onl! fair and honest means to attain the la#ful oecti$his client (Rule 1.+1) and #arns him not to allo# his client to dictate the 'rocedure in handling the case (Rule 1In 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 considerdut! to assist in the s'eed! and efficient administration of ustice. A la#!er shall not file multi'le actions arising the same cause (Rule 1*.+*). A la#!er shall not undul! dela! a case, im'ede the e6ecution of a udgment or micourt 'rocesses (Rule 1*.+)

he rights of res'ondent?s client in Ci$il Case 9o. of the C #ere full! 'rotected and her defenses #ere 'ro$entilated #hen he filed the a''eal from the C to the RC. ;ut res'ondent thereafter resorted to de$iousunderhanded means to dela! the e6ecution of the udgment rendered ! the C ad$erse to his client. hedecision ecame e6ecutor! e$en 'ending its a''eal #ith the RC ecause of the failure of Co to file a su'erseond and to 'a! the monthl! rentals as the! fell due. Furthermore, his 'etition for annulment of the decisions oC and RC #hich he filed #ith the CA ([email protected]. 9o. 11%+) #as defecti$e and dilator!. According to the CA, #as no allegation therein that the courts had no urisdiction, that his client #as denied due 'rocess, or 5tha

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'ondealso guilt! of forum sho''ing. he Court e6'lained that forum sho''ing e6ists #hen, ! reason of an ad$erse decin 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 e#ere all reuffed, res'ondent $iolated the dut! of a memer of the ;ar to institute actions onl! #hich are ust anu' such defenses as he 'ercei$es to e trul! contestale under the la#s

7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent is 3"3&29D2D for one !ear.

. Choa )s. Chiongson (A.. 9o. J@@1+%>. Feruar! , 1%)

FAC3: A com'laint #as filed against Alfonso Choa for maing untruthful statements or falsehoods in his &etitio

9aturaliEation. he case #as doceted as Criminal Case 9o. +>** and #as assigned to unici'al rial CouCities (CC) of ;acolod Cit! ;ranch III 'resided ! the res'ondent Judge Roerto Chiongson. On Feruar1, res'ondent Judge found the com'lainant guilt! of the crime of 'erur!. Later on, Att!. Ra!mundo A. Kuirocounsel for the com'lainant and $erified ! the latter, charged Judge Chiongson #ith gra$e misconduct, grossand 'artialit!, and ha$ing no#ingl! rendered an unust udgment ased on ne6t@door@neighor relationshi' et#Choa?s #ife the 'ri$ate com'lainant in the 'erur! case and res'ondent udge. Also, a''eal on the criminal casefiled 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 udg

-eld:23.La#!ers must al#a!s remind himself of the oath he too u'on admission to the ;ar that he #ill not #itting


8/61


#illingl! 'romote or sue an! groundless, false or unla#ful suit nor gi$e aid nor consent to the sameP4 9eedless to the la#!er, 'etitioner CF37" otained from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias #rit of e6ecutiothe satisfaction and enforcement of the udgment in its fa$or. hereafter, #rit #as ser$ed Januar! 1 and 1, 1le$!ing on the 'ersonal 'ro'erties of the Cosmos Foundr! 3ho' or the 9e# Centur! Foundr! 3ho' for the 'ur'oconducting the 'ulic auction sale.

Res'ondent Lo ;u filed an urgent motion to recall #rit of e6ecution, asserting lac of urisdiction of the CouIndustrial Relations (CIR). he CIR, in its order dated Fe *>, 1>, denied his motion. 3o lie#ise #as the motioreconsideration.

Lo ;u a''ealed ! certiorari ut the Court denied this 'etition in its resolution dated Jul! 1, 1>. In the mean#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 discom'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 $indicate his rights o$ele$ied 'ro'erties, in an e6'editious or less e6'ensi$e manner, herein a''ellant $oluntaril! sumitted himself,forced inter$enor, to the urisdiction of res'ondent CIR, ! filing an urgent ?otion to Recall 7rit of 26ecution,? 're/uestioning the urisdiction of said Court to 'ass u'on the $alidit! and legalit! of the sale of the ?9e# Centur! Fou3ho'? to him, #ithout the latter eing made a 'art! to the case, as #ell as the urisdiction of said Court to enforceDecision rendered against the res'ondents in the "L& Case ! means of an alias #rit of e6ecution agains'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 sustainingdignit! of the 'rofession #hile acting as counsel for Lo ;u.

-eld: A legal counsel is e6'ected to defend a client


9/61


loss of his land ut #as dismissed. the record estalishes that Att!. Lim #as merel! 'erforming his dut! as counsthe 'laintiffs in Ci$il Case 9o. >* #hen he did #hat is no# com'lained ofIn Ci$il Case 9o. >* and Felicidad had sued the heirs of A'olinario Bamalinda for recon$e!ance, #ith damages, of the eastern half of Lot 9o. >'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 Lo>*1 elonged to him ! $irtue of a Deed of 26traudicial 3ettlement #ith Kuitclaim e6ecuted ! the heirs of A'oliBamalinda #hich #as under the latter?s name at that time. hus, #hen the tenants of 3alud ;alot, entered the 'oeing culti$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 is! the lo#er court, she filed through counsel, Att!. Lim, a motion to declare com'lainant Bamalinda in contemcourt.

Com'lainant inter'osed the defense that the area in dis'ute #as different from the area occu'ied ! him. he lcourt ordered a resur$e! #hich sho#ed that contrar! to com'lainant?s claim, the lot occu'ied ! him #as the same land in$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 unsatifiled an 5"rgent otion to Re/uire Domingo Bamalinda to 3urrender C #hich #as granted, ut com'lainant refto surrender the O#ner?s Co'! 'rom'ting Att!. Lim to file the /uestioned 5otion to Declare O#ner?s Co'! of Cand 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$il Case>*. he first motion #as filed to 'rotect his clients? 'ossessor! rights o$er the 'ro'ert! in dis'ute #hile the semotion #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-e shall ser$e his client #ith com'etence and diligence, and his dut! of entire de$otion to his client?s cause notre/uires, ut entitles him to em'lo! e$er! honorale means to secure for the client #hat is ustl! due him or to 'ree$er! defense 'ro$ided ! la# to enale the latter?s cause to succeed. An attorne!?s dut! to safeguard the cliinterests commences from his retainer until the effecti$e release from the case 1% or the final dis'osition of the #suect matter of the litigation. During that 'eriod, he is e6'ected to tae such reasonale ste's and such ordinar!

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 commendedcondemned, 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 LimDI3I332D for lac of merit.

.) *. . *$A( S%(S I(C. 5S. LIA('A I(D$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!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 signconstitutes a certificate ! him that he read the 'leading and to the est of his no#ledge there is good grousu''ort it4 it is not inter'osed for dela!5 #ith the e6'ress admonition for a #illful $iolation of this rule, an attorne!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 maattained.P

oo+oo


10/61

ELS: Legal Ethics Case Digests for Final Exams Twenty1

Facts:&laintiff sought reco$er! from defendant of the sum of &++ re'resenting the un'aid alance of office e/ui'mentalso 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 a

Defendant filed its Ans#er #here it denied s'ecificall! all the allegations of 'aragra'hs of the com'laint, #hich armaterial allegations referring to its 'urchase of the office e/ui'ment, its 'artial 'a!ment and refusal and failure to

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 'lai'osition that 5#hen defendant?s ans#er denies the allegations ecause the defendant ?has no no#ledginformation sufficient to form a elief? and ?s'ecificall! denies? other allegations, denials are in fact mere general deamounting 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 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 Cerroneousl! 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.

Ruled7e find defendant?s a''eal to e fri$olous. 9o error #as committed ! the Court elo# in ruling that 5s'ecific denare in la# general denials amounting to admissions of the material allegations ased on the 'ro$isions of Rusection 1+ and Rule , section 1 in relation to Rule 1, section 1 and Rule *+, section > of the Re$ised Rules of C

he 3u'reme Court has stressed that An une6'lained denial of information and elief of a matter of recordsmeans of information concerning #hich are #ithin the control of the 'leader, or are readil! accessile to him, is 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 issueaffirmati$e defense of ha$ing no oligation to 'a! #as a mere conclusion not 'remised on an allegation of mafacts.

Failure to den! under oath the authenticit! of the 'urchase order anne6ed re/uired ! Rule , section of the ReRules 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$ised tothe issues and a$oid unnecessar! dela!s and sur'rises. -ence, the mandator! 'ro$isions of Rule *+ of the Re$Rules of Court for a 're@trial conference for the sim'lification of the issues and the consideration of all matters #ma! aid in the 'rom't dis'osition of an action. he Rules further re/uire in Rule section that 5e$er! 'leading'art! re'resented ! an attorne! shall e signed ! at least one attorne! of record in his indi$idual name5 and tha

signature of an attorne! constitutes a certificate ! him that he has read the 'leading and that to the est ono#ledge, information and elief, there is good ground to su''ort it4 and that it is not inter'osed for dela!5 #ithe6'ress admonition that 5for a #illful $iolation of this rule, an attorne! ma! e suected to disci'linar! action.5coo'eration of litigants and their attorne!s is needed so that the salutar! oecti$es of these Rules ma! e attaine

. *$A( A%" com4lainant )s. ATT%"(E! E$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 ro3'ecial &roceedings 9o. %% of the Court of First Instance of Camarines 3ur, the financial re'ort of com'lainant

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 t

eneficiaries4 and of ha$ing instructed his client Lorelie ;ornales and the latter?s mother, Aniana 3adol@2scria to forcil! a 'arcel of land forming a 'art of the estate #hen he ne# of its ha$ing een 're$iousl! sold,


11/61


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 recordsentirel! ereft of an! direct, 'ositi$e and com'etent e$idence to su''ort the charge that res'ondent detachedremo$ed official records from the Office of the Cler of Court of Camarines 3ur, 'articularl! the financial re'ort inthe order of closure of, 3'ecial &roceeding 9o. %%. If at all, com'lainant a''ears to ha$e merel! assumed

ecause, #hen he #as allegedl! sho#n ! the cler of court the records of said case, the same 'ur'ortedl! contaat the time onl! the 'roated #ill and res'ondent?s motion for an accounting therein then res'ondent must s'irited a#a! the financial re'ort filed therein ! com'lainant and the order of the court for the closure of'roceedings. On the other hand, res'ondent did not onl! $igorousl! den! the im'utation that he too said recordsthe e6'ediente of the case, ut he also sumitted in e$idence a certification of the ranch cler of the Court of Instance of Camarines 3ur attesting to the fact that the records of the aforecited 'roate 'roceedings, includinallegedl! missing financial re'ort and order, are all intact and unaltered. 9eedless to state, mere assum'tions cae the asis of an! finding against an! memer of the ar #ho, as an official of the court, is 'resumed to act #ithutmost 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$ious no#that the com'lainant as e6ecutor had alread! filed his financial re'ort and that in fact the 'roate 'roceedingseen closed and terminated, the re'ort characteriEed it as 5unfounded and aseless. Res'ondent e6'lained that #he e6amined the records of said case on Jul! , 11, he found on the last 'age thereof the financial re'ocom'lainant of a! 11, 1, together #ith the latter?s motion for the consideration and a''ro$al thereof, ut thsaid motion a''eared not to ha$e een resol$ed ! the court, he then got the im'ression that the 'roate 'roceehad not !et een finall! terminated. hat such e6'lanation is reasonale and elie$ale is sho#n ! the fact that the 'roate court found com'lainant?s financial re'ort on the last 'age of the record of the case still unacted u#hich situation lie#ise led it to elie$e that the case had not !et een terminated. Of course, had res'ondent mamore diligent and e6hausti$e e6amination of the records of said 'roate 'roceedings, he #ould ha$e fsome#here therein com'lainant?s financial re'ort of Jul! , 1 and the court?s order of closure of Januar! , 1and he #ould not ha$e filed his motion for accounting in /uestion. ;e this as it ma!, ho#e$er, #e fail to disceres'ondent?s filing of his aforesaid motion for accounting an! delierate attem't or intention on his 'art to mislead'roate court in said case, or to cause com'lainant discredit or 'ut him in disre'ute so as to ustif! disci'linar! aagainst him in this case. here #as no ustification either for the allegation that res'ondent induced his clients, Lo;ornales and the latter?s mother Aniana 3adol@2scria, to enter forcil! one of the 'arcels of land suect of 3'&roceeding 9o. %%.

hus, res'ondent should he asol$ed of the charges hurled against him. Com'lainant ought to ha$e dis'la!greater sense of res'onsiilit!. -e should ha$e refrained from im'osing on this Court or the Office of the 3olBeneral a needless urden and incon$enience. A''arentl! #hat moti$ated him in filing his com'laint #as the Eea#hich res'ondent fought for the interests of his client. Com'lainant

should e a#are that this Court does not loo #ith fa$or u'on accusations arising from dissatisfaction and resentat the mode in #hich a la#!er diligentl! and tenaciousl! 'rosecutes matters entrusted to him. Instead of condemned under the circumstances, he should e commended. Fairness to oth com'lainant and res'oncom'els the oser$ation that the latter, as a memer of the ar, is called u'on to e much more careful and meticin e6amining the records of a case and noting e$er! 'leading, e$en if as has ha''ened in not a fe# cases, the 'aare not e't in as orderl! a manner as is oth 'ro'er and desirale.

.) ALF%(S% 5ISITACI%( )s. 5ICT%" A(IT s


12/61


heirs, so that 'laintiff could amend the com'laint accordingl!. he onl! amendment in the com'laint consistim'leading the #ido# and heirs of the deceased original defendant in sustitution for him. he court admitted the

Amended Com'laint. he case #as again set for hearing #ith notice to the 'arties through their counsels of reOne da! efore the said hearing, Att!. Barcia filed a 5otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel5, alleging that 5the heirs of 8anit ha$e not hired him to re'resent them and conse/uentl!, his continued a''earance in re'resentation of a dclient #ould e illegal5 and asing the trial court 5that he e relie$ed as counsel in the ao$e@entitled case foreasons stated herein.5 7hen the case #as called on the ne6t da!, neither defendants nor Att!. Barcia a''earedthe trial court noting 5defendants? a''arent lac of interest as can e gleaned from the records5 considered theha$e renounced their right to a''ear and 'resent e$idence to contest 'laintiff?s claim. It did not 'ass u'on

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 8anit5 is tenale

-eld:he 3C ruled in the negati$e. he trial Court #as 'erfectl! correct in rel!ing u'on Att!. Barcia?s re'resentatioaccordance #ith Rule 1>, section *1 of the Rules of Court #hich 'ro$ides that 5(A)n attorne! is 'resumed t'ro'erl! authoriEed to re'resent an! case in #hich he a''ears ....5 his a''eal must accordingl! e dealt #ith aa''eal on ehalf of said heirs as defendants@a''ellants and not in the 5uni/ue5 conce't #ith #hich Att!. Barcia #circumscrie it. he contention that said defendants@a''ellants, as sustituted 'arties@defendants ! $irtue of eing the heirs of the deceased original defendant should ha$e een rought #ithin the Court?s urisdictiosummons is fallacious. For the record sho#s that Att!. Barcia at the time acno#ledged recei't of the AmenCom'laint sustituting said defendants@heirs for the deceased original defendant as 5Attorne! for the defenda'resented no o''osition thereto, and furthermore 'ra!ed for and #as granted ! the Court a 'eriod of 1 da!s tan ans#er to the Amended Com'laint. -a$ing een dul! im'leaded and ha$ing sumitted to the Court?s urisdthrough their counsel, Att!. Barcia, the issuance of a summons #as unnecessar!. Further, the trial court did not eignoring the otion to 7ithdra# as Counsel filed ! Att!. Barcia. In the face of Att!. Barcia?s 're$ious re'resentaand a''earance as counsel of record for the sustituted defendants, his last hour motion to #ithdra# as counsedisclaimer that said defendants ha$e hired him to re'resent them M #hich he filed one da! efore the date sresum'tion of the hearing M came too late and #as 'ro'erl! ignored ! the Court. -is motion #as not $erified. Afrom the fact that his said motion carried no notice, in $iolation of the re/uirement of the Rules of Court, and ctherefore e treated as a 5mere scra' of 'a'er5, the said motion #as lie#ise fatall! defecti$e in that it carrienotice to his clients on record, the defendants@a''ellants, as re/uired ! the Rules of Court. Furthermore, it issettled that 5(A)n attorne! seeing to #ithdra# must mae an a''lication to the court, for the relation doeterminate formall! until there is a #ithdra#al of record4 at least so far as the o''osite 'art! is concerned, the rel

other#ise continues until the end of the litigation.5 he trial court?s ignoring of the last@hour motion and its hando#n of its decision on the da! of the hearing, u'on the failure of defendants and their counsel to a''ear, in s'itheir ha$ing een dul! notified thereof, #as in effect a denial of counsel?s a''lication for #ithdra#al. Att!. Barune6'lained failure to a''ear #as une6cusale. -e had no right to 'resume that the Court #ould grant his #ithdrIf he had then a''eared and insisted on his #ithdra#al, the trial court could then ha$e had the o''ortunit! to ordea''earance of defendants@a''ellants and $erif! from them the truth of his assertion that the! had not 5hired hre'resent them.5 he circumstances of the case and the a''eal taen all together lead to the conclusion that thehour #ithdra#al a''lication of Att!. Barcia and his a''eal 5as officer of the Court and then counsel of the decea#as ut a de$ice to 'rolong this case and dela! in the e6ecution of the udgment, #hich should ha$e een carried!ears ago.

1+. FELIA . DE "%! an6 5I"'ILI% "A%S )s. C%$"T %F AEALS an6 L$IS &E"(AL S". 'LE&E"(AL L$IS &E"(AL *". @EI"S %F A"ISSA &E"(AL namely 'LICE"IA DELA C"$ &E"(AL an6

&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 !famil! of the 'ri$ate res'ondents resulting in inuries to 'ri$ate res'ondents had een #arned ! 'etitioners to $atheir sho' in $ie# of its 'ro6imit! to the #eaened #all ut the former failed to do. In the RC, 'etitioners #ere fguilt! of gross negligence. On the last da! of the 1 da!s 'eriod to file an a''eal, 'etitioners filed a motioreconsideration #hich #as again denied. he 3u'reme Court finds that Court of A''eal did not commit a gra$e aof discretion #hen it denied 'etitioner


13/61


9O.here is no la# re/uiring the 'ulication of 3u'reme Court decision in the Official BaEette efore the! cainding and as a condition to their ecoming effecti$e. It is ounden dut! of counsel as la#!er in acti$e la# 'ractiee' areast of decisions of the 3u'reme Court 'articularl! #here issues ha$e een clarified, consistentl! reiteand 'ulished in the ad$ance re'orts of 3u'reme Court decisions and in such 'ulications as the 3CRA and

ournals.

In the instant case, 'etitioners? motion for e6tension of time #as filed on 3e'temer , 1, more than a !ear aftee6'iration of the grace 'eriod on June >+, 1%. -ence, it is no longer #ithin the co$erage of the grace 'eConsidering the length of time from the e6'iration of the grace 'eriod to the 'romulgation of the decision of the C

of A''eals on August *, 1, 'etitioners cannot see refuge in the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rutheir 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 motioe6tension of time to file a motion for reconsideration ma! e filed #ith the etro'olitan or unici'al rial CourtsRegional rial Courts, and the Intermediate A''ellate Court. 3uch a motion ma! e filed onl! in cases 'ending #it3u'reme Court as the court of last resort, #hich ma! in its sound discretion either grant or den! the e6tenre/uested.

11. C


14/61


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#the herein defendant@a''ellant and the sti'ulation of facts the latter admitted 'racticall! all the allegations ocom'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'ongrounds, to #it: first, the three 'leadings filed namel!: a''ellant?s ans#er, the sti'ulation of facts and the motiorender udgment on the 'leadings #ere all 're'ared ! the 'laintiff?s counsel and that he, the a''ellant, #as mad

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 're'ared and induced the defendant to sign all the 'leadings u'on #hich the assailed decision #as ased, incluand 'articularl! the said defendant?s ans#er, that the dismissal of the same, in the asence of the 'etitioner#ithout affording him the chance to e heard thereon, indeed #as incom'atile #ith the e6ercise of sound uddiscretion.

I33"2:7hether or not the la#!er of the 'laintiff can communicate #ith the defendant directl! and testif! u'on the signidocuments

-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 icounsel for the o''osing 'art! is raEenl! unethical to sa! the least. he Canons of Legal 2thics $er! e6'licitl! dethat 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$ers! #ith a 'art! re'resented ! coumuch less should he undertae to negotiate or com'romise the matter #ith him, ut should deal onl! #ith his couIt is incument u'on the la#!er most 'articularl! to a$oid e$er!thing that ma! tend to mislead a 'art! not re'rese! counsel and he should not undertae to ad$ise him as to the la#. (9o. )

As #e ha$e alread! said in the case of Cantorne $. Ducusin, &hil. *>, the simultaneous re'resentation ! a laof oth 'arties to a suit constitutes mal'ractice #hich should e se$erel! condemned and the la#!er correctedisci'linar! action. If ut for this consideration alone, the court elo# should ha$e allo#ed the motio'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''e#as seriousl! sic at the time he #as made to sign and s#ear to the ao$e three re'udiated 'leadings. o e surless than the officer efore #hom the said 'leadings #ere suscried and s#orn to admitted that this $erificationconducted at the a''ellant?s residence in Ceu #here the latter #as confined 5suffering from fe$er, #ith an ice cahis head and 'rofusel! 'ers'iring.5 "nder the circumstances, therefore, the mental ca'acit! of the a''ellares'onsil! assent to commitments set forth in the same three 'leadings ecame doutful and the trial court shha$e e6erted its earnest efforts to resol$e the dout. 2s'eciall! so #hen account is taen of the fact that the sumatter 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 a udgment is here! re$oed and set aside.

1>. Del, 1% at :>+ o?cloc in the morning. And considering the case'ending since A'ril >, 11 and under an! circumstance the Court #ill not entertain an! other transfer of hearing o

case and if the 'arties #ill not e read! on that da! set for hearing, the court #ill tae the necessar! ste's for thedetermination of this case.


15/61


he defendants, thru counsel, filed a motion for 'ost'onement. he lo#er court (;ranch II, 'resided ! Judge Boissued an order that #hile the motion for 'ost'onement #as filed #ith the conformit! of the counsel for 'laintiff same should e referred ac to ;ranch I, so that the same ma! e dis'osed therein.

On the scheduled date of hearing, that is, on a! *, 1%, the lo#er court (;ranch I, #ith Judge FernandeE 'resid#hen informed aout the defendants? motion for 'ost'onement issued an order reiterating its 're$ious order hado#n in o'en court on arch *1, 1% and directing the 'laintiffs to introduce their e$idence e6 'arte, there eina''earance on the 'art of the defendants or their counsel.

Issue: 7hether the 'ost'onement of hearings de'end u'on agreement of the 'arties.

-eld 9o.

It is of no moment that the motion for 'ost'onement had the conformit! of the a''ellees? counsel. he 'ost'oneof hearings does not de'end u'on agreement of the 'arties, ut u'on the court?s discretion.

It #as the dut! of Att!. RuiE, or of the other la#!ers of record, not e6cluding the a''ellant himself, to a''ear eJudge FernandeE on the scheduled dates of hearing &arties and their la#!ers ha$e no right to 'resume thatmotions for 'ost'onement #ill e granted. For indeed, the a''ellant and his 1* la#!ers cannot 'retend ignoranthe recorded fact that since 3e'temer *, 1> until the trial held on a! *, 1%, the case #as underad$isement of Judge FernandeE #ho 'resided o$er ;ranch I. here #as, therefore, no necessit! to 5re@assignsame to ;ranch II ecause Judge FernandeE had e6clusi$e control of said case, unless he #as legall! inhiited the case M and he #as not.

here is truth in the a''ellant?s contention that it is the dut! of the cler of court M not of the Court M to 're'artrial calendar. ;ut the assignment or reassignment of cases alread! 'ending in one sala to another sala, andsetting of the date of trial after the trial calendar has een 're'ared, fall #ithin the e6clusi$e control of the 'res

udge.

1. @eirs of Elias Lorilla )s. CA

Facts:&ri$ate res'ondent &entaca'ital Finance Cor' (&entaca'ital) filed a com'laint #ith RC aati for sum of magainst 3an!u achineries Agencies, Inc. and se$eral other defendants including 'etitioner herein 2lias Lorilla re'resented ! his heirs) #ho acted as suret! for * cor'orate detors.

During the 'endenc! of the case, Lorilla e6ecuted a dacion en 'ago o$er a 'ro'ert! in fa$or of JOint Resouanagement De$elo'ment Cor' (JRDC) as 'a!ment of his oligation to the latter. -o#e$er, he same 'ro'ert!the suect of e6ecution in fa$or of &entaca'ital.

;efore the #rit of e6ecution #as issued ! RC aati, 2lias Lorilla died. 9o a''eal #as taen ! Att!. AlfConce'cion, counsel of record of 2lias Lorilla.

hereafter, &etitioners(heirs) filed a motion to /uash the #rit of e6ecution and annulment of dacion en 'ago, argthat the udgment cannot e enforce since Lorilla 'assed a#a! 1 !r and > months efore RC aati rend

udgment raising sec. *1 of Rule > of the Rules of court as asis, #hich states: #hen the action is for reco$emone!, det, interest and the defendant dies efore the final udgment in the CFI, it shall e dismissed in the ma'ro$ided in these rules.

Issue: 1.7O9 the udgment should e final and e6ecutor! against 'etitioners des'ite Att!. Conce'cion?s failunotif! the court of 2lias death and to a''eal such udgment.

*. 7O9 'etitioners #ere denied due 'rocess of la# as there #as no sustitution due to Att!. Conce'cion?s fault.

-eld:

1. es. 9o notice of death #as filed ! Att!. conce'cion thus, the court nor &entaca'ital #ere made a#are of the dof 2lias Lorilla. he trial court could not e e6'ected to no# or tae udicial notice of the death of 2lias Lorilla. 9ethe 'etitioners ha$e een a#are of the ad$erse udgment since all notices and orders of the court #ere sent to Locounsel of record.

It is the dut! of the counsel to 'rom'tl! inform the court of the death of his client. he failure of such counsel herein 'etitioners as much as the client himself could e so ound. Juris'rudence holds that a client is ound


16/61


conduct, negligence and mistae of his counsel.

Furthermore, since there #as no timel! a''eal taen from the udgment of the RC aati, such udgmen'ro'erl! ecome final and e6ecutor!.

*. &etitioners claimed that the! #ere denied due 'rocess of la# since there #as no 'ro'er sustitution as defenddue to Att!. conce'cion?s fault, ho#e$er, the 'ro'ert! #hich the! claim as la#ful inheritance #as no longer 'art oestate of at the time of lorilla?s death. Lorilla earlier e6ecuted a dacion en 'ago in fa$or of JRDC as his 'a!mehis oligation to the latter. A ne# C therefore #as issued in fa$or of JRDC. herefore, 'etitioners do not ha$e

interests in the 'ro'ert! for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

1.) A)elino )s. ALA(A

Facts: A com'laint #as filed ! 8alentin A$elino against Att!. &edro G. &alaNa. the latter #as charged #ith mal'rain connection #ith his 'rofessional conduct as the com'lainant?s counsel. such mal'ractice ha$ing gi$en rise trendition of udgment against said com'lainant and his #ife.

1. Att!. &alaNa did not dul! inform his client of the date of the trial scheduled for 9o$emer 1, 1 #hene$idence sho#s that he recei$ed notice of such hearing on Octoer 11, 1.

*. he filing of the motion for ne# trial on Januar! , 1 #as made out of time. he dela! in the filing osaid motion remains une6'lained.

>. Att!. &alaNa?s *nd motion for ne# trial, after the Court had afforded him all the o''ortunit! to 'lead his msuccessfull!, #as denied ! the lo#er court on the ground that he failed to com'l! #ith an order of the court dFeruar! 1, 1. 7hile the said motion #as dul! filed on time, a 're$ious order of the Court directed the mo$ant &alaNa to ser$e a co'! of his amended motion to the other 'art! through counsel, ut com'liance there#ith doesa''ear on the said motion).

he trial #as set for hearing ut the res'ondent instead of attending the hearing, ust sumitted the memoranand the re'resentati$e from O3B didn?t a''ear efore the court.

Issue: 7O9 &alana is guilt! of mal'ractice.

-eld:

"'on consideration of the #hole record, 7e find no sufficient ustification to re$erse the finding made ! the Offithe 3olicitor Beneral to the effect that res'ondent 5did not dul! inform his client of the date of the trial schedule9o$emer 1, 15 in s'ite of the fact that, according to the e$idence, he had recei$ed notice of such hearingda!s efore.

As regards res'ondent?s failure to a''ear in court on the da! set for the trial, 7e are inclined to acce't his claim t#as due to the fact that earl! in the morning of that date he had 5a se$ere stomach ache, follo#ed ! constant mof o#el and $omiting and that as a conse/uence he ecame $er! #ea.5 ;ut #hile this might e, to a certain e6tgood e6cuse for his non@a''earance in court, it is o$iousl! not sufficient to e6'lain his failure to notif! his cliendue time of the date of the trial. -ad he done so, his clients #ould 'roal! ha$e tried to contact him in due time,u'on disco$ering that he #as sic the! #ould ha$e either gone to court to as for the 'ost'onement of the trial, or#ould ha$e looed for another la#!er to re'resent them in court.

1%. Diman )s Al, 1, the 'ri$ate res'ondents? comthereon, the re'l! to the comment, as #ell as the record of the case itself, the Court #as con$inced that the orddismissal should e reconsidered and the 'etition reinstated. he court accordingl! 'romulgated a resolution toeffect on Octoer 1*, 1, and re/uired res'ondents to file their Comment on the 'etition #ithin ten (1+) da!s notice. 9otice of the Resolution #as dul! ser$ed on 'ri$ate res'ondents? attorne! on Octoer *1, 1. he lattea motion for e6tension of time of thirt! (>+) da!s to file comment, counted from Octoer >1. he Court grantee6tension sought, ut onl! for fifteen (1) da!s. he comment #as filed late, on 9o$emer *+, 1, Coune6'lanation is that he had sought an e6tension of >+ da!s 5due to the other $olume of legal #ors similarl! situand school #or of the undersigned as 'rofessor of la# and dean of the "ni$ersit! of anila,5 and had entertaine

honest elief5 that it #ould e granted. -o#e$er, he learned elatedl! that onl! a 1@da! e6tension had conceded. -e forth#ith com'leted the comment and filed it, aleit fi$e da!s late.


17/61


I33"2: 7hether or not the comment should e admitted ! the court

-2LD:he Court admits the late comment, ut taes this occasion to reiterate the familiar doctrine that no 'art! has a rigan e6tension of time to com'l! #ith an oligation #ithin the 'eriod set therefor ! la#4 motions for e6tension aregranted as a matter of course4 their concession lies in the sound discretion of the Court e6ercised in accordancethe attendant circumstances4 the mo$ant is not ustified in assuming that the e6tension sought #ill e granted, or t#ill e granted for the length of time suggested ! him. It is thus incument on an! mo$ant for e6tension to e6e

due diligence to inform himself as soon as 'ossile of the Court?s action on his motion, ! time in/uir! of the CleCourt. 3hould he neglect to do so, he runs the ris of time running out on him, for #hich he #ill ha$e nood!himself to lame.1. L$CIA(% A. SA$L%' ) C$ST%&$ILT A($FACT$"I(' C%"%"ATI%( ET AL.

FAC3: &laintiff 3aulog sued in the Cit! Court of anila for damages and attorne!s? fees against defenCustomuilt anufacturing Cor'oration (Customuilt), 9orth#est Insurance 3uret! Co., Inc. (9orth#est), anCit! 3heriff of anila. &laintiff com'lained that Customuilt caused to e sold on e6ecution certain 'ro'elonging to him #hich he leased to one Adriano Bo, Customuilt?s udgment detor in another case. hose 'ro'econsisted of a 'iano #ith a stool, and a rattan dinner and sala set. &laintiff filed a third@'art! claim to sta$e off le$!Customuilt 'osted a &1,*++@ond to 'a$e the #a! for the e6ecution sale of said 'ro'erties. he court rend

udgment in fa$or of the 'laintiff (udgement #as ased on 'laintiff?s e$idence e6@'arte ecause all of the defendfailed to a''ear for trial des'ite due notice). Customuilt a''ealed to CFI anila. 7hen the 're@trial #as Customuilt?s counsel #as in the courtroom ut left efore the case #as called. On 'laintiff?s motion, the udge, osame da!, dismissed the a''eal and re$i$ed the cit! court?s udgment. he co'! of the dismissal #as recei$eCustomuilt?s counsel on 9o$emer 1+ and filed a 'etition for relief da!s after. &laintiff o''osed. On 9o$emethe court denied the 'etition for lac of merit. Customuilt a''ealed.

I33"2: 7O9 it #as 'ro'er for the CFI to den! the defendant?s 'etition for relief from udgment.

R"LI9B: he cit! court?s udgment as re$i$ed ! the Court of First Instance must e sustained.

At the start of the 're@trial, Customuilt?s attorne! #as 'resent. ;ut he unceremoniousl! left the courtroom. Coreasons that he had to lea$e ecause 5he #as summoned home all too suddenl!5 as 5his 'regnant #ife had ha$ing laor 'ains5 #hich 5#ere cause for alarm5 and she finall! deli$ered da!s after.

Counsel did not ha$e the foresight re/uired of him. &ursuant to 3ection 1, Rule *+ of the Rules of

Court, oth client and counsel must a''ear at the 're@trial. his is mandator!. Failure of the client to a''ear is grfor dismissal. If one re'resenting his client, a cor'oration, #as 'resent, counsel could ha$e easil! left #ord foformer to tell the udge that he #as suddenl! summoned to his home. If the client #ere not 'resent, then the casethe same #ould ha$e een dismissed. ;ut, the 'oint is that allegedl! someone summoned said attorne! to go home. If this #ere true, then it #ould ha$e een /uite eas! for the la#!er to ha$e ased that man to sta! aroundtell the udge or the cler or the ranch de'ut! cler of court of his 'redicament. Or, he himself could ha$e as etold the udge, or either cler, or the ad$erse counsel, the court stenogra'her, the inter'reter, the ailiff, or an!onthat matter, of his inailit! to #ait for the 're@trial. -e failed to do an!one of these.

In his 'etition for relief, Customuilt?s la#!er also made the statement that his #ife did not gi$e irth until fi$e later. It is unreasonale to assume that during the #hole 'eriod his mind #as in lan, such that it #as im'ossihim to ha$e taen ste's to tell the court 'ersonall! or other#ise that his asence during the 're@trial #as e6cus

Again, he did not. -e recei$ed co'! of the decision on 9o$emer 1+. -e did not file the 'etition for relief9o$emer 1.

All of these facts 'oint to one conclusion: lac of interest on the 'art of a''ellant to defend itself against the com'Rather, the 'attern of conduct discloses a desire to dela! dis'osal of the 'resent case. Failure to 'rosecute is a gfor dismissal of the a''eal and re$i$al of the udgment of the cit! court under 3ection , Rule + of the Rules of C

1. eo4le )s. @ILA"I%( CASII"% ET AL. 6efen6ants &E(*AI( ICALLA "%D%LF% S%"IA(%&E(*AI( CI(C% 6efen6antsa44ellants A($EL (. SA('LA! res4on6ent.

FAC3:his is !et another instance of a memer of the &hili''ine ;ar, this time, res'ondent anuel 9. 3angla!, administrati$el! 'roceeded against for failure to file the rief #ithin the reglementar! 'eriod for a''ellants ;en

Icalla, Rodolfo 3oriano and ;enamin Cinco.


18/61


-e #as gi$en the o''ortunit! to e6'lain in our Feruar! >, 1* resolution, #hich reads thus: 5For failure to file ra''ellants ;enamin Icalla, Rodolfo 3oriano and ;enamin Cinco #ithin the 'eriod #hich e6'ired on Deceme11, the Court resol$ed to Qre/uire Att!. anuel 9. 3angla! to e6'lain, #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice hereof,disci'linar! action should not e taen against him.5 1 It #as not until the end of that month that his manifestatione6'lanation came. -e #ould asol$e himself from an! lame as, in his $ie#, no fault could e attriuted to him.

As set forth in such 'leading, this is ho# he #ould e6'lain matters: 5"'on recei$ing the notice from this -onoCourt ad$ising me to file the rief for the a''ellants, I immediatel! contacted the 'arents of the three a''ellants. &Icalla and the father of ;enamin Cinco came ut the mother of Rodolfo 3oriano failed to a''ear. At that time Rod

3oriano #as alread! at large for he esca'ed from 'rison at the La "nion &ro$incial Jail. In our conference, the fat;enamin Cinco reiterated his former desire not to a''eal the case of his son. ;ut later on, &alo Icalla, fatha''ellant ;enamin Icalla 're$ailed on the father of ;enamin Cinco that the! continue the a''eal. According to &Icalla he had alread! engaged the ser$ices of a good la#!er to 're'are their rief. &alo Icalla further informethat he had alread! taen all the transcri't of the case from the stenogra'her.5 -e felt ustified in concluding thenfailure therefore to file the rief for the a''ellants is attriutale to the fault of the accused themsel$es re'resentetheir 'arents. heir 'arents disauthoriEed me to 're'are and file the rief for the a''ellants ! engaging anola#!er to do the same. In so far as the a''ellant, Rodolfo 3oriano, I could not ha$e also filed his rief for the reathat he esca'ed from ail.5

I33"2: #=n there #as negligence for failing to file the rief #ithin the reglementar! 'eriod.

-2LD:In the light of the ao$e, the most that can e admitted is that a''ellant?s failure to file the rief #as not a #illful ahis 'art. At least his good faith cannot e im'ugned. 9onetheless, the e6cul'ation he sees cannot e grantedne# that the 'eriod for filing the rief #as running. -e #as e/uall! a#are that this Court e6'ected that the mattee taen care of ! him, as he #as the counsel of record. here #as no other a''earance. "nder the circumstanthe least that #as e6'ected of him #as that he #ould inform this riunal of the de$elo'ments set forth ine6'lanation and as that he e allo#ed to #ithdra# as counsel. 3uch a ste' he did not tae until after the resolutiFeruar! >, 1* re/uiring him to e6'lain the failure to com'l! #ith his dut! as officer of the Court. It came too ladid not #i'e out the 're$ious manifestation of negligence on his 'art. -e cannot therefore esca'e liailit!. If thisstate of affairs came to 'ass, he had onl! himself to lame.

7-2R2FOR2, res'ondent anuel 9. 3angla! is re'rimanded.

1. eo4le )s. ELE'I% (ADE"A *". ! SADSADQB.R. 9os. 1>1>@. Feruar! *, *+++

Facts: Accused@a''ellant 2legio 9adera, Jr. has four children ! his #ife Dais!, namel!: Ole!4 aricris4 arch Anthon!3heril!n.

Dais! left for a o in ;ahrain.

Ole! and aricris, assisted ! a neighor, Lita acalalad, told their mother that the! had een ra'ed ! their faherein accused@a''ellant. hereu'on, the! #ent to the 'olice authorities of 9auan and filed a com'laint agaccused@a''ellant.

After 'reliminar! e6amination, four informations charging accused@a''ellant #ith ra'e on $arious dates #ere fithe Regional rial Court, Cala'an, Oriental indoro.

he record sho#s that at his arraignment, accused@a''ellant, assisted ! Att!. anolo A. ;rotonel of the & Attorne!?s Office, 'leaded not guilt! to the charges filed against him.-o#e$er, after the 'rosecution had 'resenteC!nthia 3. Fesalon, accused@a''ellant 'leaded guilt! to the crime charged in all the informations.

After Ole!?s direct e6amination had een finished, Att!. ;rotonel, accused@a''ellant?s counsel, did not conduccross e6amination on the ground that he #as con$inced Ole! #as telling the truth. he 'rosecution formall! offits documentar! e$idence and rested its case thereafter.

Accused@a''ellant did not 'resent an! e$idence in his defense. he trial court rendered udgment finding accua''ellant guilt! of four counts of ra'e against his daughters and sentencing him to suffer death 'enalt!.

Issue: 7hether the accused?s counsel faithfull! com'lied #ith his dut! as a la#!er0

-eld:


19/61


9O. he ca$alier attitude of accused@a''ellant?s counsel, Att!. anolo A. ;rotonel of the &ulic Attorne!?s Ocannot go unnoticed. It is discernile in (a) his refusal to cross e6amine Ole! 9adera4 () the manner in #hicconducted aricris 9adera?s cross e6amination4 and, (c) his failure not onl! to 'resent e$idence for the accusealso to inform the accused of his right to do so, if he desires.

he right to counsel must e more than ust the 'resence of a la#!er in the courtroom or the mere 'ro'oundistandard /uestions and oections. he right to counsel means that the accused is am'l! accorded legal assiste6tended ! a counsel #ho commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingl!. he right assumeacti$e in$ol$ement ! the la#!er in the 'roceedings, 'articularl! at the trial of the case, his earing constantl! in

of the asic rights of the accused, his eing #ell@$ersed on the case and his no#ing the fundamental 'rocedessential la#s and e6isting uris'rudence. he right of an accused to counsel finds sustance in the 'erformancthe la#!er of his s#orn dut! of fidelit! to his client. ersel! 'ut, it means an efficient and trul! decisi$e legal assistand not a sim'le 'erfunctor! re'resentation.

easured ! this standard, the defense counsel


20/61


him. here #as a clear $iolation of the la#!er?s oath that he #ould do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of acourt.

he court ordered that res'ondent &ascual 3antos e sus'ended from the 'ractice of La# for a 'eriod of tmonths.

III. ADISSI%( T% "ACTICE(J.2ra Li'a)

1. In re: Lan


21/61


enforcing the right to a''eal from decisions of the ;OI are concerned. A''eals from decisions of the ;OI, #hicstatute #as 're$iousl! allo#ed to e filed directl! #ith the 3u'reme Court, should no# e rought to the Cou

A''eals.

+. In "e: C> #ho failed in 1%@11 filed motions for reconsideration got denied.d. 1* of 1* and % of 1> #ere 'ending.e. riunal found no sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades.

I33"2: 7O9 RA * is constitutional. 9O.

-2LD: &ortion of Art. 1 referring to the e6aminations of 1% to 1*, and all of Art. * of said la# are unconstitutherefore, $oid and #ithout force and effect.&art of Art. 1 referring to the e6aminations follo#ing to the a''ro$al of the la# from 1> to 1 inclusi$e, is $alidshall continue to e in force, in conformit! #ith 3ec. 1+, Art. of the Constitution.

Conse/uentl!:a. All the ao$e@mentioned 'etitions 1% to 1* are denied. All candidates in 1> e6aminations, otaining 1.VW, #ithout ha$ing a grade @+V in an! suect, are consid'assed.c. &ermitted to tae and suscrie the corres'onding oath of office as memers of the ;ar

1. Article * 'ermits 'artial 'assing of e6aminations at indefinite inter$als.

a. Does not tae into account that the la#s and uris'rudence are not stationar!. Article not e6'ressed in the title #ill ha$e tem'orar! effect onl! from 1% to 1, the te6t of article * estalis'ermanent s!stem for an indefinite time. i. Contrar! to Constitution, #hich $itiates and annuls article * com'letel!4 and ecause it is inse'aralearticle 1, it is o$ious that its nullit! affect the entire la#.

*. "9CO93I"IO9ALI:a. 9ot #ithin the legislati$e 'o#ers of Congress to enact, or Congress has e6ceeded its 'o#ers.. Create or estalish aritrar! methods or forms that infringe constitutional 'rinci'les.c. &ur'oses or effects $iolate the Constitution or its asic 'rinci'les.

>. B292RAL R"L2:a. A classification to e $alid must rest u'on material differences et#een the 'erson included in it and t

e6cluded.. ust e ased u'on sustantial distinctions.


22/61


c. herefore, an! la# that is made a''licale to one class of citiEens onl! must e ased on some sustadifference et#een the situation of that class and other indi$iduals #ho do not a''l!.d. ust rest on some reason on #hich it can e defended.e. here should e a a difference et#een the situation and circumstances of all the memers of the class ansituation and circumstances of all other memers of the state.

. LA7 9O CO93ID2R2D B292RAL:a. O'erates on all #ithin a clause unless there is a sustantial reason #h! it is made to o'erate on that class onl!not generall! on all.

i. It #as indicated #h! unsuccessful candidates 'rior 1% #ere not included. ii. (o recor6 of examinations 4rior to 19=- 6oes not mean they 6onGt ha)e right for e


23/61


3ecretar! of Justice, to re'resent the com'laint in the case at ar #ho is a relati$e. Decision affirmed.

/. DiaAnon,++Res'ondent sent the corres'onding letter to Alfredo Ong ut the latter did not ans#er.Forth#ith a com'laint #ason arch , 1* #ith the Court of First Instance of Ala!. During the'endenc! of the ci$il case, com'lainant ares'ondent udge to allo# her to #ithdra# &>,++.++ shehad de'osited #ith him as she #as then in need of mout no action #as taen ! res'ondent.

Issue: 7O9 res'ondent is engaging in the 'ractice of la# $iolating Judiciar! Act of 1

Ruling: es. Res'ondent $iolated 3ection of the Judiciar! Act of 1, as amended, #hich 'ro$ides in'ar'ro$isions relati$e to the oser$ance of office hours and the holding of sessions a''licale tocourts of first instshall lie#ise a''l! to munici'al udges, ut the latter ma!, after office hours and#ith the 'ermission of the di

udge concerned, engage in teaching or other $ocation not in$ol$ingthe 'ractice of la# ...Res'ondent sumits t#as Att!. ;erango and not he #ho assisted the com'lainant, rs.ANonue$o, and her co@'laintiffs as counsel in thecase. Res'ondent?s claim is elied, ho#e$er, !the acti$e interest he too in the case of rs. ANonue$o manifestfollo#s: (a) -e ga$e rs.ANonue$o legal ad$ice on the remed! a$ailale to her and her co@o#ners #ith regards t'ro'ert!sold to Alfredo Ong. () -e acce'ted from rs. ANonue$o the sum of &>,++.++ for 'ur'oses ofredeemin'ro'ert! from the $endee, 'lus &1++.++ for incidental e6'enses. (c) -e #rote to AlfredoOng for and in ehalf of

ANonue$o and her co@o#ners offering to redeem the land in /uestion. (d)7hen his attem'ts at an out@of@settlement failed, he caused the filing of the com'laint in Ci$ilCase 9o. 1 for #hich he #as issued a receidocet and legal research fees. (e) -e #as 'resenttogether #ith Att!. ;erango at the 're@trial of Jul! , 1*although, as he claims, it #as Att!.;erango #ho made an a''earance for that 're@trial, the trial Judge nonethetoo note ofres'ondent?s 'resence so that the Order dictated on that occasion reads: 5Att!s. ;erango and ;ercacnotified of the date of the trial.he 'ractice of la# is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or 'artici'atiocourt'roceedings ut also includes 're'aration of 'leadings or 'a'ers in antici'ation of a litigation, gi$ing of

ad$ice to clients or 'ersons needing the same, etc.

7. De '


24/61


he contention that Att!. onsod does not 'osses the re/uired /ualification of ha$ing engaged in the 'ractice ofor at least ten !ears is incorrect since Att!. onsod@A and the 'ro$isio'ar. *, 3ection *, Article III, of the I;& ;!@La#s 'ertaining to the organiEation of I;&, 'a!ment ofmemershi' feesus'ension for failure to 'a! the same.

2dillon contends that the stated 'ro$isions constitute an in$asion of hisconstitutional rights in the sense that eing com'elled as a 're@condition to maintain his status as a la#!er in good standing, to e a memer of the I;&to 'a! the corres'onding dues, and that as a conse/uence of this com'elled financial su''ort of the said organiEto #hich he is admitted 'ersonall! antagonistic, he is eing de'ri$ed of the rights to liert! and 'ro'erl! guarantehim ! the Constitution. -ence, the res'ondent concludes the ao$e 'ro$isions of the Court Rule and of the I;&La#s are $oid and of no legal force and effect.

I33"2: 7hether or not the court ma! com'el Att!. 2dillion to 'a! his memershi' fee to the I;&.

-2LD: he Integrated ;ar is a 3tate@organiEed ;ar #hich e$er! la#!er must e a memer of as distinguished fromassociations in #hich memershi'is merel! o'tional and $oluntar!. All la#!ers are suect to com'l! #ith the 'rescried for the go$ernance of the ;ar including 'a!ment a reasonale annual fees as one of the re/uirementsRules of Court onl! com'els him to 'a! his annual dues and it is not in $iolation of his constitutional freedoassociate. ;ar integration does not com'el the la#!er to associate #ith an!one. -e is free to attend or not the meof his Integrated ;ar Cha'ter or $ote or refuse to $ote in its election as he chooses. he onl! com'ulsion to #hichsuected is the 'a!ment ofannual dues. he 3u'reme Court in order to further the 3tate, the court rendered a decision against Alcala.On A'ril 1, 1%>, Att!. De 8era recei$ed a co'! of the ad$erse decision. Att!. De 8era failed to inform Alcala aouad$erse decision.On Jul! 1, 1%>, the court sheriff #ent to Alcala to ser$e a #rit of e6ecution. hat #as the onl! time #hen Alearned that he lost. And ecause of Att!. De 8era


25/61


8era under the la#!er. Catim?


26/61


engaging in or eing connected #ith a 'ri$ate undertaing outside of office hours and #ithout forseeale detrimethe Bo$ernment ser$ice.

-is connection #ith A$esco areting Cor'oration need not e terminated, ut he must secure a #ritten 'ermifrom 'ro'er go$ernment authorit!.

1-. &eltran 5S Elaio A?a6 1+ SC"A =8+ 0197=2

FAC3: Court held res'ondent 2lmo 3. Aad a successful ar e6aminee ut has not een admitted to the &hili'

;ar in contem't of Court for unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# and he #as fined &++.++ #ith susidiar! im'risonmecase he failed to 'a! the fine. (1*1 3CRA *1). -e 'aid the fine. Att!. &roco'io 3. ;eltran, Jr., the com'lainant, fOIO9 O CIRC"LARIT2 O ALL 2RO A9ILA CO"R3 -2 FAC -A 2LO 3. A;AD I3

A"-ORIT2D O &RACIC2 LA7. he Re'ort has found as a fact, o$er the denials of the res'ondent under that he signed 26hiits ;, C, and D, and that he made a''earances in etro anila courts. his as'ect o'enres'ondent to a charge for 'erur!. he Re'ort also re$eals that Att!. Ruen A. Jacoe collaorated #ithres'ondent as counsels forAntonio 3. ara$illa one of the accused in Criminal Case 9os. *%+, *%+ and *%+the Regional rial Court of KueEon Cit!. (26hiit D.) Att!. Jacoe should e called to account for his associationthe res'ondent.

Res'ondent, #hen ased aout the aforesaid motions, 26hiits 5;5 and 5D5, and the signatures therein, denied thfiled the same and that the signatures therein are his. -e also denied that he a''eared in the hearing in the afterof Decemer , 1> in the said trial court. According to him, he #as in ;atangas at the time. -e also testified thaonl! e6'lanation he could gi$e regarding the signatures in the aforesaid e6hiits is that the same could ha$e effected ! Att!. ;eltran to sho# the 3u'reme Court that he (res'ondent) #as still illegall! 'racticing la#. As tmotion for e6amination and anal!sis of res'ondent?s signature, the In$estigator, to afford res'ondent full o''ortun'ro$e his defense, sought the assistance of the 9ational ;ureau of In$estigation to com'are res'ondent?s signatuthe aforesaid e6hiits #ith the signatures a''earing in the 'leadings that he filed in the 3u'reme Court, #hich signature he admits as genuine and as his o#n. he aforesaid documentar! and testimonial e$idence, as #ell aao$e re'ort of the 9;I, ha$e clearl! 'ro$ed that res'ondent Aad is still 'racticing la# des'ite the decision oCourt of arch *, 1>.

I33"23: 7hether or not Aad can engage in 'ractice of la#.7hether or not Att!. Jacoe liale in his collaoration #ith the res'ondent.

-2LD: 9o. Onl! those licensed ! the 3u'reme Court ma! 'ractice la# in this countr!. he right to 'ractice la# ia natural or constitutional rightut is a 'ri$ilege. It is limited to 'ersons of good moral character

s'ecial /ualifications dul! ascertained and certified. he e6ercise of this 'ri$ilege 'resu''oses 'ossession of intelegal no#ledge, educational attainment and e$en 'ulic trust, since a la#!er is an officer of the couar candidate does not ac/uire the right to 'ractice la# sim'l! ! 'assing the ar e6aminations. he 'ractice of la 'ri$ilege that can e #ithheld e$en from one #ho has 'assed the ar e6aminations, if the 'seeingadmission had 'racticed la# #ithout license. Res'ondent Aad should no# that the circumstances #hichas narrated do not constitute his admissionto the &hili''ine ;ar and the right to 'ractice la# thereafter. -e shno# that t#o essential re/uisites for ecoming a la#!er still had to e 'erformed, namel!: his la#!er?s oath administered ! this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorne!s. (Rule 1>, 3ecs. 1 and 1, Rules of Court.regulation of the 'ractice of la# is un/uestional! strict. "nder 3ection > (e) of Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, a 'e#ho engages in the unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# is liale for indirect contem't of court. r. 2lmo 3. Ahere! fined Fi$e -undred (&++.++) 'esos 'a!ale to this Court #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice failing #hich heser$e t#ent!@fi$e (*) da!s im'risonment.

es. -e $iolated Canon Rule .+1 S A la#!er shall not delegate to an! un/ualified 'erson the 'erformance oftas #hich ! la# ma! onl! e 'erformed ! a memer of the ;ar. in good standing. A la#!er shall not assist an#ho is not a memer of the ;ar to 'ractice la# in this countr!. hus, he must not tae as 'artner or associate in hfirm a 'erson #ho is not a la#!er, a la#!er #ho has een disarred and a la#!er #ho has een sus'ended 'ractice of la#. he la#!er #ho assists in an unauthoriEed 'ractice of la# #hether directl! or indirectl! is suedisci'linar! action. Finall!, Att!. Ruen A. Jacoe is re/uired to e6'lain #ithin ten (1+) da!s from notice #h! he shnot e disci'lined for collaorating and associating in the 'ractice of the la# #ith the res'ondent #ho is not a meof the ar.

1/. &araco 5S inatacan 1/ SC"A 17 0197=2

Facts: his is an administrati$e case filed against res'ondent #ith moral tur'itude and immoralit!. Com'lainant irth to a a! girl named aria Rochie ;acarro &inatacan4 that ecause of res'ondent?s etra!al, her famil! suf

shame, disre'ute, moral distress and an6iet!4 and, that these acts of res'ondent render him unfit to ecome a meof the ;ar. On the other hand, res'ondent maintains that e$en admitting the truth of com'lainant?s allegations


27/61


circumstances of their relationshi' #ith each other, does not ustif! him for dis/ualification to the 'ractice of la#.

Issue: 7O9 res'ondent is entitled to tae the la#!ers oath des'ite ha$ing a case in$ol$ing his good moral chara-eld: es, the court allo#ed Ruen to tae the la#!ers oath. considering that res'ondent has legall! recogniEedacno#ledged com'lainant?s child aria Rochie ;acarro &inatacan as his o#n, and has undertaen to gi$e finasu''ort to the said child, 7e hold that he has realiEed the #rongfulness of his 'ast conduct and is no# 're'areturn o$er a ne# leaf. ;ut he must e admonished that his admission to and continued memershi' in the ;ade'endent, among others, on his com'liance #ith his moral and legal oligations as the father of aria Ro;acarro &inatacan.

Ratio: One of the indis'ensale re/uisites for admission to the &hili''ine ;ar is that the a''licant must e of moral character. his re/uirement aims to maintain and u'hold the high moral standards and the dignit! of the 'rofession, and one of the #a!s of achie$ing this end is to admit to the 'ractice of this nole 'rofession onl! t'ersons #ho are no#n to e honest and to 'ossess good moral character. 5As a man of la#, (a la#!er) is necesa leader of the communit!, looed u' to as a model citiEen5 -e sets an e6am'le to his fello# citiEens not onl! fores'ect for the la#, ut also for his clean li$ing. hus, ecoming a la#!er is more than ust going through a la# coand 'assing the ;ar e6aminations.

17. Diao 5S artine / SC"A =/8 019-+2

19. In "e: Argosino /, SC"A - 0199/2

,. Collantes 5S "enomeron ,, SC"A 87= 019912

LA!E"GS D$TIES T% S%CIET!

1. ontecillo 5S 'ica -, SC"A += 019/=2

. In "e: '


28/61


of the la#, in dis'osing of the case of his client. Del ar #as then sus'ended indefinitel!.

+. %ronce 5S CA 97 SC"A 1++ 019772

Facts: During a dis'ute o$er land, Flaminiano illegall! too 'ossession of the 'ro'ert! in litigation using amethods. 3he #as aided ! her husand, a la#!er. he illegal entr! too 'lace #hile the case #as 'ending in th #hile a #rit of 'reliminar! inunction #as in force.

-eld: Att!. Flaminiano


29/61


counsel de 'arte is unale to secure from his clients or from their near relati$es the amount necessar! to 'ursua''eal, that does not necessaril! conclude his connection #ith the case. -e should e a#are that in the 'ursuanthe dut! o#ed this Court as #ell as to a client, he cannot e too casual and unconcerned aout the filing of 'leadIt is not enough that he 're'ares them4 he must see to it that the! are dul! mailed. 3uch inattention as sho#n incase is ine6cusale.

/. De "oy 5S CA 18/ SC"A /8/ 019772

FAC3: he fire#all of a urned out uilding o#ned ! Felisa De Ro! colla'sed and destro!ed the tailoring

occu'ied ! the famil! of Luis ;ernal resulting in inuries and e$en to the death of ;ernal


30/61


he res'ondent Judge not onl! denied the motion ut also a''ointed him as counsel de oficio for the t#o defenda

On 9o$emer >, 1%, 'etitioner filed an urgent motion to e allo#ed to #ithdra# as counsel de oficio, 'remisethe 'olic! of the Commission on 2lections to re/uire full time ser$ice as #ell as on the $olume or 'ressure of #o'etitioner, #hich could 're$ent him from handling ade/uatel! the defense.

On 9o$emer %, Judge denied the motion. -ence, Ledesma instituted this certiorari 'roceeding.

Issue: 7hether or not a memer of the ar ma! #ithdra# as counsel de oficio due to a''ointment as 2leRegistrar.

-eld: he ends of ustice #ould e ser$ed ! re/uiring Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio ecause: the has een 'ost'oned at least times at the defense?s instance4 there #as no incom'atiilit! et#een dut! of 'etitto defend the accused, and his tas as an election registrar. here is not liel! at 'resent, and in the immediate fuan e6oritant demand on his time.

Ledesma?s #ithdra#al #ould e an act sho#ing his lac of fidelit! to the dut! re/uired of the legal 'rofession. -e oto ha$e no#n that memershi' in the ar is urdened #ith conditions. he legal 'rofession is dedicated to the ideser$ice, and is not a mere trade. A la#!er ma! e re/uired to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the 'erformance oadministration of ustice. he fact that such ser$ices are rendered #ithout 'a! should not diminish the la#!er?s Eea

In &eo'le $. -olgado: In criminal cases there can e no fair hearing unless the accused e gi$en an o''ortunit! heard ! counsel. he right to e heard #ould e of little a$ail if it does not include the right to e heard ! cou2$en the most intelligent or educatedman ma! ha$e no sill in the science of la#, 'articularl! in the rules of 'roceand4 #ithout counsel, he ma! e con$icted not ecause he is guilt! ut ecause he does not no# ho# to estalisinnocence. And this can ha''en more easil! to 'ersons #ho are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason tharight to e assisted ! counsel is deemed so im'ortant that it has ecome a constitutional right and it im'lemented that under rules of 'rocedure it is not enough for the Court to a''rise an accused of his right to ha$attorne!, it is not enough to as him #hether he desires the aid of an attorne!, ut it is essential that the court shassign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is 'oor or grant him a reasonale time to 'rocure an attorne! o#n.P

he 'resent Constitution 'ro$ides not onl! that the accused shall eno! the right to e heard ! himself and couut further 'ro$ides that An! 'erson under in$estigation for the commission of an offense shall ha$e the rigremain silent and to counsel, and to e informed of such right. 9o force, $iolence, threat, intimidation, or an! o

means #hich $itiates the free #ill shall e used against him. An! confession otained in $iolation of this section e inadmissile in e$idence.P his made manifest the indis'ensale role of a memer of the ;ar in the defense oaccused.

hus, Ledesma should e6ert himself sufficientl!, if not #ith Eeal, if onl! to erase douts as to his fitness to remmemer of the 'rofession in good standing. he admonition is e$er timel! for those enrolled in the rans of 'ractitioners that there are times, and this is one of them, #hen dut! to court and to client taes 'recedence o$e'

Legal Ethics Digests Print

Documents

Transcript of Legal Ethics Digests Print