Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Circle 2016
University of Santo Tomas
Digested by: DC 2016 Members
Editors:
Tricia Lacuesta
Lorenzo Gayya
Cristopher Reyes
Macky Siazon
Janine Arenas
Ninna Bonsol
Lloyd Javier
LEGAL
ETHICS
Supreme Court decisions penned by Associate Justice
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Table of Contents
Legal Ethics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer ......................................................................................................... 1
To Society ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
To the Legal Profession ....................................................................................................................................... 5
To the Courts ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
To the Clients ..........................................................................................................................................................11
Notarial Practice ........................................................................................................................................................14
Judicial Ethics ...................................................................................................................................................................16
Discipline of the Members of the Judiciary ..................................................................................................16
Disqualification of Judges and Justices ...........................................................................................................22
Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers ...................................................................................25
Court Records and General Duties of Clerks and Stenographers .....................................................26
Retirement of Members of the Judiciary .......................................................................................................27
1|Page
2|Page
3|Page
4|Page
5|Page
Ruling:
1.
2.
YES. The lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Needless to stress, Senator Santiago, as a member of the Bar and
officer of the court, like any other, is duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this
Court and to maintain the respect due its members. Lawyers in public service are keepers of
public faith and are burdened with the higher degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than their brethren in private practice. Senator Santiago should have known, as any
perceptive individual, the impact her statements would make on the peoples faith in the
integrity of the courts.
To the courts
a) Candor, fairness and good faith towards the courts
ANTONIO CONLU v. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA, JR.
A.C. No. 4955, September 12, 2011, Velasco, Jr., J.
The lawyer should not be sitting idly by and leave the rights of the client in a state of
uncertainty. The failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable
negligence.
Facts:
6|Page
7|Page
Ruling:
1.
2.
YES. The lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Needless to stress, Senator Santiago, as a member of the Bar and
officer of the court, like any other, is duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this
Court and to maintain the respect due its members. Lawyers in public service are keepers of
public faith and are burdened with the higher degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than their brethren in private practice. Senator Santiago should have known, as any
perceptive individual, the impact her statements would make on the peoples faith in the
integrity of the courts.
8|Page
9|Page
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, MILAGROS L. PRINCIPE, NARCISA L. FAUSTINO, JORGE V. LEGASPI and
JUANITO V. LEGASPI v. ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR.
A.C. No. 7781, September 12, 2008, Velasco, Jr., J.
Notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document
unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before
the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein.
Facts:
In a complaint for disbarment, Dela Cruz, et. al. alleged that Atty. Dimaano notarized an
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights where their signatures were forged, they did
not appear and acknowledge the same before Atty. Dimaano as notarizing officer, and the community
tax certificates in the document were not theirs. This document enabled their sister, Zenaida
Navarro, to sell the property to the DPWH. Atty. Dimaano admitted that he notarized the document,
relying in good faith on Navarros assurance that the signatures and tax certificates were correct. The
Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Dimaano violated the Notarial Law.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Dimaano violated the Notarial Law.
Ruling:
YES, Atty. Dimaano violated the Notarial Law. Notaries public should refrain from affixing
their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same
individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of
what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document
in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free act or deed. Furthermore,
notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has
acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or
exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and date of issue as part of
certification.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice now requires a party to the instrument to present
competent evidence of identity: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; (b) the oath or affirmation of one
credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to
the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of
whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual
and shows to the notary public documentary identification. For failing to meet such requirements,
15 | P a g e
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Discipline of members of the Judiciary
RICKY GARAY, et al. v. JUDGE NICASIO BARTOLOME
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1703, June 17, 2008, Velasco, Jr., J.
Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors men forgive and time forgets. For when
they display an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, they erode the confidence of the public in the
competence of our courts. Such lack is gross ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal
commands and rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, of which no one is excused, and surely is not
an embodiment of a judge.
Facts:
Complainants are the accused in a criminal case wherein they were charged with qualified
theft of bus starters and different tools amounting to P187,000. Judge Nicasio Bartolome, the MTC
judge handling the case, issued a warrant of arrest against them and detained them in the provincial
jail. In the clarificatory hearing conducted during the preliminary investigation, only Garay attended.
Three (3) months after, Judge Bartolome issued the disputed resolution subject of this case.
In this administrative complaint filed by the complainants before the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), the latter found that a criminal case for qualified theft involving P187,000 falls
clearly within the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the MTC. The OCA found Judge Bartolome guilty of
violating Sections 3 and 5, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, note that
Judge Bartolome issued the Order submitting the cases for resolution on September 23, 2005. It was
only on December 27, 2005, more than three (3) months after, when he issued the Joint Resolution
ordering the return of the cases to the provincial prosecutor for further preliminary investigation.
Section 5 of the rules requires that Judge Bartolome submit his resolution of the case within ten (10)
days after the preliminary investigation and transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or
city prosecutor. There is no question that Judge Bartolome took inordinate delay of three (3) months
in submitting his resolution of the preliminary investigation. Section 5 also requires that Judge
Bartolome state the findings of facts and the law supporting his action which he did not.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Bartolome should be held administratively liable.
Ruling:
YES. As can be gleaned from his Joint Resolution, Judge Bartolome made no determination
on whether or not there was sufficient ground to hold complainants for trial. He did not recommend
the dismissal of the criminal complaints nor the filing of the appropriate informations against
complainants. Neither did he state the law upon which he based his order. Judge Bartolome's failure
to follow the procedures outlined in Secs. 3 and 5 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure is a clear indication of his gross ignorance of the rules on preliminary investigation, and
his delay of more than three (3) months in resolving the investigation only to order that it be re-
16 | P a g e
JOSEFINA NAGUIAT v. JUDGE MARIO B. CAPELLAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MTCC, BR. 1, MALOLOS
CITY, BULACAN
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1782 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-1807-MTJ], March 23, 2011, Velasco, Jr., J.
In ejectment cases, the first duty of a judge is to examine the allegations in the complaint and
the evidence appended to it, and to dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent for the
dismissal of a civil action. If there is a ground for dismissal existing and apparent upon the filing of the
complaint, and yet the judge allowed the case to unnecessarily drag on, the judge is guilty of undue
delay in rendering a decision.
Facts:
Judge Capellan was administratively charged with Delay in Rendering Judgment relative to
an ejectment case. He dismissed the said case on the ground that the plaintiffs representative lacked
the personality to file the case because his authority, as reflected in the corporate secretary's
certificate appended to the complaint, was for another case. As alleged, it took the respondent judge
six years to resolve, on technicality, a case governed by the rule on summary procedure.
Issue:
Whether respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order.
Ruling:
YES. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, the first duty of the respondent upon the filing
of the case for ejectment was to examine the allegations in the complaint and the evidence appended
to it, and to dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent for the dismissal of a civil
action. In this case, the ground for dismissing the Civil Case existed and was apparent upon the filing
of the basic complaint. The representatives lack of personality was reflected in the corporate
secretary's certificate appended to the complaint. Yet, respondent judge allowed the case to
unnecessarily drag on for more than five years. Further, respondent having allowed several and
doubtless unnecessary postponements which contributed to the delay in the resolution of what was
otherwise a simple case. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order constitutes a less serious
offense for which respondent is subjected to a fine.
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
PROSEC. JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, RTC, BR. 36, CALAMBA CITY,
LAGUNA
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179, September 24, 2012, Velasco, Jr., J.
In administrative cases against judges, it is the complainants duty to substantiate his
allegations with evidence.
Facts:
Prosec. Baculi filed an information for qualified theft against Capacete but Judge Belen
dismissed the case. In the Motion for Reconsideration, Prosec. Baculi stated: The dismissal of the
information by the court was motivated by hatred, ill-will, and prejudice against Asst. State
Prosecutor II Jorge Baculi, the Investigating Prosecutor at the Preliminary Investigation. Judge Belen
found Baculi guilty of direct contempt and indirect contempt for the contemptuous nature of
pleadings Baculi filed in his sala. In both direct and indirect contempt proceedings, Prosec. Baculi
filed manifestations and motions to postpone or cancel hearings. Prosec. Baculi then filed two
administrative complaints against Judge Belen for gross ignorance of law, gross misconduct and
issuance of fraudulent and unjust orders. Baculi argues that he was not formally charged and that no
notice of hearing was conducted to afford him the opportunity to air his side.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Belen should be held administrative liable for holding Prosec. Baculi in
contempt.
Ruling:
NO, Judge Belen is not administratively liable. Aside from his bare allegations, the
complainant has not presented any credible evidence to support his allegations against Judge Belen.
The fact that Judge Belen had initiated contempt proceedings against him, and in fact convicted him
in such contempt proceedings, does not by itself amount to ill motives on the part of Judge Belen. The
initiation of the contempt proceedings stemmed from the acts of the complainant himself. His
unsupported claim that the prior libel case he filed against Judge Belen created animosity between
them is not sufficient to prove his claim of evil motives on the part of Judge Belen.
19 | P a g e
GEOFFREY BECKETT v. JUDGE OLEGARIO R. SARMIENTO, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 24,
Cebu City
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326, January 30, 2013, Velasco, Jr., J.
Gross ignorance of the law on the part of a judge presupposes an appalling lack of familiarity
with simple rules of law or procedures and well-established jurisprudence which tends to erode the
public trust in the competence and fairness of the court which he personifies.
Facts:
Geoffrey Beckett (Beckett), an Australian national, was previously married to Eltesa Densing
Beckett (Eltesa), a Filipina. Out of the marriage was born, Geoffrey Beckett, Jr. (Geoffrey, Jr.). Eltesa
filed a case against Beckett for violation of RA 7610, followed by a suit for the declaration of nullity of
their marriage. Both cases ended in the sala of Judge Olegario Sarmiento, Jr. (Judge Sarmiento). Judge
Sarmiento rendered judgment based on a compromise agreement in which Eltesa and Beckett
agreed, to cause the dismissal of all pending civil and criminal cases against each other and that
Beckett shall have full and permanent custody over Geoffrey, Jr., then 5 years old, subject to the
visitorial rights of Eltesa.
In 2007, Beckett obtained a divorce from Eltesa in Australia. In the 2010 visit, Beckett
consented to have Geoffrey, Jr. stay with Eltesa even after the holidays, provided she return the child
on January 9, 2011. January 9 came and went but Geoffrey, Jr. remained with Eltesa, prompting
Beckett to file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Beckett said that while waiting
for the pre-trial conference to for the petition, he saw one Helen Sy, purportedly a close friend of
Eltesa, enter Judge Sarmientos chambers. Then, during the conference itself, Eltesa moved for
reconsideration of the courts order, praying that it be set aside insofar as it directed her to return
the custody of Geoffrey, Jr. to Beckett. However, instead of enforcing said order and/or waiting for
Becketts comment, Judge Sarmiento, in open court, issued another order giving Eltesa provisional
custody over Geoffrey, Jr.
Beckett filed the instant complaint and alleges that Judge Sarmiento is liable for (1) gross
ignorance of the law for granting Eltesa provisional custody over Geoffrey Jr.; and (2) partiality by
committing acts of serious misconduct and irregularities in the performance of official duties, such as
but not limited to allowing one Helen Sy to enter his chambers before hearing. Beckett predicates his
charge of dereliction and neglect of duty on respondents alleged failure to resolve his motion for
reconsideration of the order giving provisional custody of his child to his mother.
20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
22 | P a g e
JOHNWELL W. TIGGANGAY v. JUDGE MARCELINO K. WACAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
Tabuk City, Kalinga
A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3243-RTJ, April 1, 2013, Velasco, Jr., J.
Affinity is defined as the relation which one spouse because of marriage has to blood relatives
of the other. There is no relationship by affinity between two persons if they are not in-laws of each
other. In such cases, the judge who is alleged to be related to the person involved in the case handled by
the former is not disqualified under Sec. 1 of Rule 137 to hear the election case.
Facts:
Johnwell W. Tiggangay (Tiggangay) ran for mayor of Tanudan, Kalinga in May 2007 election
but lost to Rhustom L. Dagadag (Dagadag). Tigganay filed an electoral protest with the RTC of Tabuk
City, Kalinga which was raffled to Judge Marcelino K. Wacas (Judge Wacas). Judge Wacas rendered a
decision declaring that Tinggangay lost in the election and which was affirmed by the COMELEC.
Tinggangay filed a verified letter-complaint charging Judge Marcelino K. Wacas (Judge Wacas) with
23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e