Case #32 Zosa

[G.R. No. L-33672. September 28, 1973.]

VICENTE MUOZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents, DELIA T. SUTTON ,
respondent.
Topic:
Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquotes or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that
which has not been proved.
Facts:
1. Delia Sutton, a member of the Philippine bar, was the defense lawyer in
the case Vicente Muoz vs PP and CA. She was also connected to Salonga,
Ordoez, Yap, Parlade, and Associates law firm.
2. Supreme Court found out that the defense submitted an unbelievable
version of the case, attributing to the CA that its decision was made upon
facts different from what actually transpired.
Defense Theory: Muozs boat was rammed out by the complainant.
Truth: Muozs boat hit the left frontal outrigger of the complainants boat
where the complainant was seated, thereby hitting him on the back and
causing his death.
Muozs motorboat had suffered very little damage which would have been
considerable had it been rammed by the offended partys boat.
3. The Court resolved to deny the petition upon the ground that it is mainly
factual and for lack of merit. Where the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals [are conflicting], the same [are not binding] on the Supreme Court.
(Cesica v. Villaseca, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30, 1957)
4. SC set a hearing requiring all lawyers-partners in the firm to be present.
Sutton appeared. While her demeanor was respectful, it was obvious that
she was far from contrite.

5. Sutton was subjected to intensive questioning by several members of the

Court, yet she was not budged from such an untenable position. It was as if
she was unconcerned, oblivious of the unfavorable reaction to which her
evasive answers gave rise.
6. Atty Sedfrey Ordoez (law firm partner) expressly acknowledged that
what happened in the petition for certiorari prepared by Sutton did
misrepresent what is set forth in the CA decision and was reprehensible. He
was humble enough to make the necessary expression of regret.
7. Delia Sutton and Atty. Ordoez filed a Joint Apology to the Supreme
Court, seeking to make amends.
Issue:
Whether or not Sutton must be held accountable in connect to a duty she
owes to the Tribunal as a counsel.
Decision: YES, she must be held accountable.
1. While expressing regret and offering apology, there was lacking that
frank admission that what was done by her should not be characterized
merely as "errors" consisting as they do of "inaccurate statements." If there
were a greater sincerity on her part, the offense should have been
acknowledged as the submission of deliberate misstatements.
2. As set forth in the applicable Canon of Legal Ethics: "Nothing operates
more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice against lawyers as a
class, and to deprive the profession of that full measure of public esteem
and confidence which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties than does
the false claim, often set up by the unscrupulous in defense of questionable
transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him
to succeed in winning his client's cause." What is more, the obligation to the
bench, especially to this Court, for candor and honesty takes precedence. It
is by virtue of such considerations that punishment that must fit the offense
has to be meted out to respondent Delia T. Sutton.
3. WHEREFORE, respondent Delia T. Sutton is severely censured.