Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.) VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and TRIN
IDAD NORDISTA vs.
ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS
248 SCRA 68 (September 7, 1995)
The Case:
Petitioners: The Complainants, former clients of the respondent, pray that the l
atter be disbarred for "malpractice,
neglect and other offenses which may be discovered during the actual investigati
on of this complaint." Attached in
their Affidavit of Merit, they allege that because of the respondents neglect and
malpractice of law that they lost
their case to Judge Capulong and their appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Respondent: The unfavorable judgment by the Regional Trial Court in the case is
not imputable to [his] mistake but
rather imputable to the merits of the case. He further claims that the complaina
nts filed this case to harass him
because he refused to share his attorney s fees in the main labor case he had ha
ndled for them. The respondent
then prays for the dismissal of this complaint for utter lack of merit, since hi
s failure to file the answer was cured
and, even granting for the sake of argument that such failure amounted to neglig
ence, it cannot warrant his
disbarment or suspension from the practice of the law profession.
The Antecedent Facts:
Santiago, Hontiveros, Manas, and Nordista, members of Far Eastern University Fac
ulty Association (FEUFA), were
alleged to have illegally expelled Paulino Salvador from the union. The latter f
iled a complaint with the Dept. of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) which ruled in favor of Salvador. Subsequently, Salv
ador filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela a complaint against the complainants for actual,
moral, and exemplary damages
and attorney s fees.
The respondent, As the complainants counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the said
case on grounds of (1) res
judicata and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to
dismiss. Judge Capulong granted the
motion but was later re-instated upon Salvadors motion for reconsideration and re
quired the complainants herein
to file their answer within a nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice.
Instead of filing an answer, the
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case. This mo
tion having been denied, the
respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari. Both petition and th
e subsequent motion for
reconsideration were denied, respondent still did not file the complainants answe
r. The respondent then filed a
motion to set aside the order of default and to stop the ex-parte reception of e
vidence before the Clerk of Court,
but to no avail. Thereafter, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Salvador. Com
plainants, assisted by respondent,
elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals but affirmed the decision in toto by
the RTC.
The respondent admits that it was his duty to file an answer in the civil case/
He justifies his failure to
do so n his overzealousness to question the Denial Order of the trial court, so
he instead, thru
honest mistake and excusable neglect, filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the H
onorable
Court, and, when the Court of Appeals, to which G.R. No. 100983 was referred, di
smissed the
petition, he again "inadvertently" failed to file an answer due to honest mistak
e and because of his
overzealousness as stated earlier. Petitioner contends that the respondents act
was not an honest
mistake but was "deliberate, malicious and calculated to place them on the legal
disadvantage, to
their damage and prejudice" for, as admitted by him in his motion to set aside t
he order of default,
his failure to do so was "due to volume and pressure of legal work."
Issue: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant di
sciplinary action, in failing to
file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
Ruling: It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or ad
vocate for every person who may wish
to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, however,
to Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
1
. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to s
uch
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latter s cause with wholehearted fide
lity, care, and devotion. Else
wise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in
the maintenance and defense of his
client s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from
his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that h
is client is entitled to the benefit of any
and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he ma
y expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is becaus
e the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but a
lso to the court, to the bar, and to
the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only pr
otects the interest of his client;
he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain th
e respect of the community to
the legal profession.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent s i
nability to exercise
due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a law
yer accepts deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importan
ce and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free.
All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professio
nal Responsibility
which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence
and, more
specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a l
egal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
2.) Cantiller vs. Potenciano, 180 SCRA 246 (1989)
Facts: Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philipp
ine Bar under Roll No.
21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gr
oss misconduct,
malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued
a decision against the
latter. A notice to vacate was then issued against Cantiller.
Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was ma
de to sign by
respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and ha
phazardly composed
petition for annulment of judgment.
The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Responden
t demanded from the
1
Canon 14. Lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely
on account of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because
his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
14.02 A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae or
a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.
14.03 A lawyer shall not refuse to accept representation of an indigent clien
t unless: (a) he is not in position to carry out the work
effectively or completely; (b) he labors under conflict of interest between him
and the present client and the prospective client.
14.04 A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professiona
l fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.
complainant P l,000.00 as attorney s fee. However the judge of the said court as
ked the respondent to
withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship.
Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was a
llegedly needed to be
paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenc
iano did not succeed in
locating the judge.
Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter
. The amount was
allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer s Office of Pasig as purchase price
of the apartment and P
1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit needed in order for the complainant t
o retain the possession
of the property. But later on Cantiller found out that the amounts were not nece
ssary to be paid. A
demand was made against Potenciano but the latter did not answer and the amounts
were not returned.
Contrary to Potencianos promise that he would secure a restraining order, he with
drew his appearance
as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as re
placement. Hence, the
order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.
Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.
Held: When a lawyer takes a client s cause, he thereby covenants that he will ex
ert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or
the abandonment of a
client s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had repo
sed on him. The acts of
respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional e
thics.
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting h
is client s interests.
Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judg
e to withdraw his
appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledg
e, respondent took no
steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach
in dealing with their
clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition.
It is a matter of public
interest.
3.) A.C. No. 3283 July 13, 1995
RODOLFO MILLARE, petitioner, vs. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO, respondent.
Facts:
Pacifica Millare, the mother of the complainant, obtained a favorable
judgment from the MTC of Abra
which ordered Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case (C
ivil Case No. 844). Co,
through respondent as counsel, appealed the decision to the RTC. She neither fil
ed a supersedeas bond
nor paid the rentals adjudged by the MTC. The RTC affirmed in toto the decision
of the MTC.
The CA dismissed Co s appeal from the decision of the RTC for failure to comply
with Section 22 of B.P.
Blg. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines. Accor
ding to the CA, Co should have
filed a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal.
The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 19, 1986.
Respondent filed a total of six appeals, complaints or petitions to f
rustrate the execution of the MTC
judgment in Civil Case No. 844, to wit:
(1) Civil Case No. 344 Appeal from the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 844 o
f the Municipal Trial
Court, Bangued, Abra, with the Regional Trial Court, Abra;
(2) CA-G.R. CV No. 11404 Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, A
bra;
(3) CA-G.R. SP No. 11690 An Action For the Annulment of Decisions And/Or Reforma
tion or Novation
of Decisions filed with the Court of Appeals;
(4) G.R. No. 86084 Petition For Review On Certiorari filed with the Supreme Cour
t;
(5) CA-G.R. SP No. 17040 Appeal And/Or Review By Certiorari, Etc. fil
ed also with the Court of
Appeals; and,
(6) SP Civil Action No. 624 Petition For Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with
Preliminary Issuance of
Prohibitory Order filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued, Abra.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay
the execution of the
judgment rendered by the MTC adverse to his clients. YES
2. Whether or not respondent is guilty of forum shopping. YES
HELD:
Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer i
s required to represent his client
"within the bounds of the law." The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair an
d honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not t
o allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for
hire.
Under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required
to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administra
tion of justice. A lawyer shall not file
multiple actions arising from the same cause (Rule 12.02). A lawyer s
hall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes (Rule 12.04)
The rights of respondent s client in Civil Case No. 844 of the MTC were fully pr
otected and her defenses
were properly ventilated when he filed the appeal from the MTC to th
e RTC. But respondent thereafter
resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the execution of t
he judgment rendered by the
MTC adverse to his client. The said decision became executory even pe
nding its appeal with the RTC
because of the failure of Co to file a supersedeas bond and to pay the monthly
rentals as they fell due.
Furthermore, his petition for annulment of the decisions of the MTC and RTC whic
h he filed with the CA
(CA-G.R. No. 11690) was defective and dilatory. According to the CA, there was n
o allegation therein that
the courts had no jurisdiction, that his client was denied due process, or "that
the judgments in the former
cases were secured through fraud."
Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the executio
n of the same judgment,
respondent is also guilty of forum shopping. The Court explained that
forum shopping exists when, by
reason of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to ano
ther for a more favorable
resolution of his case
By having wilfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to
get a favorable judgment,
which efforts were all rebuffed, respondent violated the duty of a me
mber of the Bar to institute actions
only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contest
able under the laws
WHEREFORE, respondent is SUSPENDED for one year.
4. Choa vs. Chiongson
(A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063. February 9, 1996)
Complainant: Alfonso C. Chua
Respondent: Judge Roberto S. Chiongson
Ponente: J. Davide, Jr.
FACTS:
A complaint was filed against Alfonso Choa for making untruthful statements or f
alsehoods in his Petition
for Naturalization. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 50322 and was ass
igned to Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MCTC) of Bacolod City Branch III presided by the responde
nt Judge Roberto
Chiongson. On February 21, 1995, respondent Judge found the complainant guilty o
f the crime of perjury.
Later on, Atty. Raymundo A. Quiroz as counsel for the complainant and verified b
y the latter, charged
Judge Chiongson with grave misconduct, gross bias and partiality, and having kno
wingly rendered an
unjust judgment based on
next-door-neighbor relationship between Choa s wife
the private complainant
in the perjury case and respondent judge. Also, appeal on the criminal case was
filed together with the
administrative complaint.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Quiroz assisted in filing a groundless, unfounded, or false
suit against respondent
judge.
Held:
YES.Lawyers must always remind himself of the oath he took upon admission to the
Bar that he will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor
give aid nor consent to the
same; Needless to state, the lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued a
t the expense of truth
and the administration of justice,and it must be done within the bounds of reaso
n and common sense.
As to the respondent Judges being a next-door neighbor of the complainants wife the complainant in
the perjury case - it must be stressed that that alone is not a ground for eithe
r a mandatory
disqualification under the first paragraph or for a voluntary disqualification u
nder the second paragraph of
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. In any event, the complainant has fai
led to disclose in his
complaint that he had raised this matter at any time before the rendition of the
judgment. In fact, the
summary of the grounds of his motion for reconsideration in the respondents order
denying the said
motion does not include this matter. If indeed the complainant honestly believed
in the justness of this
Held:
A legal counsel is expected to defend a clients cause but not at the expense of t
ruth and in defiance of
the clear purpose of labor laws. For even such case, Atty Busmente had not excul
pated himself. He ought
to remember that his obligation as an officer of the court, no less
than the dignity of the profession,
requires that should not act like an errand-boy at the beck and call of his clie
nt, ready and eager to do his
every bidding. If he fails to keep that admonition in mind, then he
puts into serious question his good
standing in the bar.
6. GAMALINDA VS ALCANTARA
FACTS:
complainant Domingo Gamalinda charges retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Atty
. Joselito Lim with
grave abuse of their profession, deception, threats, dishonoring and in
juring the reputation of said
complainant and bringing about the loss of his land but was dismissed. the reco
rd establishes that Atty.
Lim was merely performing his duty as counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case N
o. 3827 when he did what
is now complained ofIn Civil Case No. 3827 and Felicidad Balot had s
ued the heirs of Apolinario
Gamalinda for reconveyance, with damages, of the eastern half of Lot No. 3217
. plaintiffs were able to
secure a writ of preliminary injunction.
Pending appeal to the CA, complainant entered a portion of the area
in dispute, in the belief that the
whole of Lot No. 3217 belonged to him by virtue of a Deed of Extra
judicial Settlement with Quitclaim
executed by the heirs of Apolinario Gamalinda which was under the latter s name
at that time. Thus, when
the tenants of Salud Balot, entered the portion being cultivated by c
omplainant, the latter reported the
incident to the police.
From Salud Balot s viewpoint, it was complainant who intruded into her
land. Relying therefore on the
injunction issued by the lower court, she filed through counsel, Atty. Lim, a mo
tion to declare complainant
Gamalinda in contempt of court.
Complainant interposed the defense that the area in dispute was different from t
he area occupied by him.
The lower court ordered a resurvey which showed that contrary to complainant
s claim, the lot occupied
by him was the very same land involved. Accordingly, the lower court
and CA declared complainant in
contempt.
Atty. Lim moved for the execution of the affirmed judgment, and when the writ of
execution was returned
unsatisfied, filed an "Urgent Motion to Require Domingo Gamalinda to Surrender T
CT which was granted,
but complainant refused to surrender the Owner s Copy prompting Atty. Lim to fil
e the questioned "Motion
to Declare Owner s Copy of TCT Null and Void," which the lower court granted.
the questioned acts of Atty. Lim were all done in line with his duty to prosecut
e his clients cause in Civil
Case No. 3827. The first motion was filed to protect his clients po
ssessory rights over the property in
dispute while the second motion was made to procure execution of the decision in
Civil Case No. 3827.
Issue: WON the acts of atty. Lim were correct.
Held:
Yes .A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be
mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. He shall serve his client with competence and diligence, and his
duty of entire devotion to
his client s cause not only requires, but entitles him to employ every hono
rable means to secure for the
client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided b
y law to enable the latter s cause to
succeed. An attorney s duty to safeguard the client s interests commenc
es from his retainer until the
effective release from the case 16 or the final disposition of the w
hole subject matter of the litigation.
During that period, he is expected to take such reasonable steps and
such ordinary care as his client s
interests may require.
This is precisely what Atty. Lim was doing when he filed the motions
complained of. He should be
commended, not condemned, for diligently and competently performing his duties a
s an attorney;
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative charges against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara
and Atty. Joselito
Lim are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
7.) J. P. JUAN & SONS, INC. VS. LIANGA INDUSTRIES, INC.
Background:
This is a simple collection case that unnecessarily reached the Supreme Court
PALE related phrase/s:
Rules of Court were devised to limit the issues and avoid unnecessary
delays and surprises. Hence
mandatory (are the) provisions of the Revised Rules of Court for a pre-trial con
ference
The Rules further require that "every pleading shall be signed by at least
one attorney of record that
signature constitutes a certificate by him that he read the pleading and to the
best of his knowledge there
is good ground to support it; it is not interposed for delay" with
the express admonition for a willful
violation of this rule, an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action.
The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that the salutary o
bjectives of these Rules
may be attained.
oo0oo
Facts:
Plaintiff sought recovery from defendant of the sum of P900 representi
ng the unpaid balance of office
equipment and also for the payment of legal interests and costs for attorney s f
ees.
Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and defendant appealed the
same to the Court of First
Instance of Manila.
Defendant filed its Answer where it denied specifically all the allegations of p
aragraphs of the complaint,
which are the material allegations referring to its purchase of the office equip
ment, its partial payment and
refusal and failure to pay the unpaid balance despite repeated demands.
Defendant did not deny under oath the authenticity of the purchase order annexed
to the complaint.
The lower Court rendered its decision granting plaintiff s motion for judgment o
n the pleadings. Upholding
the plaintiff s position that "when defendant s answer denies the alleg
ations because the defendant has
no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief and specifically denie
s other allegations, denials
are in fact mere general denials amounting to admissions.
Defendant filed its notice of appeal asking that its appeal be elevated to the C
ourt of Appeals, resulting in
further delay in the resolution of this simple collection case,
No facts are disputed in this appeal defendant-appellant simply insists that it
had tendered issues of fact
and the Court erroneously rendered judgment on the pleadings. The questions pres
ented are issues only
of law.
Consequently, the power of appellate review in this instance belongs to the Supr
eme Court.
Issue:
Whether the appeal should be dismissed?
Issue related to PALE:
The duty of a litigant and his attorney in avoiding the needless clogging of cou
rt dockets.
Ruled
We find defendant s appeal to be frivolous. No error was committed by
the Court below in ruling that
"specific denials" are in law general denials amounting to admissions of the mat
erial allegations based on
the provisions of Rule 8, section 10 and Rule 9, section 1 in relation to Rule 1
9, section 1 and Rule 20,
section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court has stressed that An unexplained denial of informatio
n and belief of a matter of
records, the means of information concerning which are within the cont
rol of the pleader, or are readily
accessible to him, is evasive and is insufficient to constitute an effective den
ial.
Defendant-appellant has no cause to complain of the judgment appealed from. Its
claim that it tendered
an issue with affirmative defense of having no obligation to pay was a mere conc
lusion not premised on
an allegation of material facts.
Failure to deny under oath the authenticity of the purchase order annexed requir
ed by Rule 8, section 8 of
the Revised Rules of Court was properly deemed an admission of the ge
nuineness and due execution
thereof.
Cases such as this contribute to the needless clogging of the court
dockets. The Rules of Court were
devised to limit the issues and avoid unnecessary delays and surprises. Hence, t
he mandatory provisions
of Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court for a pre-trial conference for the simp
lification of the issues and
the consideration of all matters which may aid in the prompt disposit
ion of an action. The Rules further
require in Rule 7 section 5 that "every pleading of a party represented by an at
torney shall be signed by at
least one attorney of record in his individual name" and that "the s
ignature of an attorney constitutes a
certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the be
dealings."
As to the accusation that respondent still filed a motion for accounting on July
5, 1971 despite his
previous knowledge that the complainant as executor had already filed his financ
ial report and that in fact
the probate proceedings had been closed and terminated, the report characterized
it as "unfounded and
baseless. Respondent explained that when he examined the records of said case on
July 5, 1971, he
found on the last page thereof the financial report of complainant of May 11, 19
59, together with the
latter s motion for the consideration and approval thereof, but that as said mot
ion appeared not to have
been resolved by the court, he then got the impression that the probate proceedi
ngs had not yet been
finally terminated. That such explanation is reasonable and believable is shown
by the fact that even the
probate court found complainant s financial report on the last page of the recor
d of the case still unacted
upon, which situation likewise led it to believe that the case had not yet been
terminated. Of course, had
respondent made a more diligent and exhaustive examination of the records of sai
d probate proceedings,
he would have found somewhere therein complainant s financial report of July 8,
1958 and the court s
order of closure of January 5, 1959, and he would not have filed his motion for
accounting in question. Be
this as it may, however, we fail to discern in respondent s filing of his afores
aid motion for accounting any
deliberate attempt or intention on his part to mislead the probate court in said
case, or to cause
complainant discredit or put him in disrepute so as to justify disciplinary acti
on against him in this case.
There was no justification either for the allegation that respondent induced his
clients, Lorelie Bornales
and the latter s mother Aniana Sadol-Escriba, to enter forcibly one of the parce
ls of land subject of
Special Proceeding No. 667.
Thus, respondent should he absolved of the charges hurled against him. Complaina
nt ought to have
displayed a greater sense of responsibility. He should have refrained from impos
ing on this Court or the
Office of the Solicitor General a needless burden and inconvenience. Apparently
what motivated him in
filing his complaint was the zeal with which respondent fought for the interests
of his client. Complainant
should be aware that this Court does not look with favor upon accusations arisin
g from dissatisfaction and
resentment at the mode in which a lawyer diligently and tenaciously prosecutes m
atters entrusted to him.
Instead of being condemned under the circumstances, he should be commended. Fair
ness to both
complainant and respondent compels the observation that the latter, as a member
of the bar, is called
upon to be much more careful and meticulous in examining the records of a case a
nd noting every
pleading, even if as has happened in not a few cases, the papers are not kept in
as orderly a manner as
allowed the motion for postponement pleaded by the appellant and heard the merit
s of the latter s petition
to set aside judgment.
Moreover, the affidavits of merit appended to the petition to set aside judgment
recited that the defendantappellant was seriously sick at the time he was made to sign and sw
ear to the above three repudiated
pleadings. To be sure, no less than the officer before whom the said
pleadings were subscribed and
sworn to admitted that this verification was conducted at the appellan
t s residence in Cebu where the
latter was confined "suffering from fever, with an ice cap on his head and profu
sely perspiring." Under the
circumstances, therefore, the mental capacity of the appellant to responsibly as
sent to commitments set
forth in the same three pleadings became doubtful and the trial court
should have exerted its earnest
efforts to resolve the doubt. Especially so when account is taken of the fact th
at the subject matter of the
suit was not just an insubstantial sum but properties allegedly worth some P165,
000.00.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the order of the court below denying the appellant
s petition to set
aside judgment is hereby revoked and set aside.
13. INOCENCIA DELUAO and FELIPE DELUAO plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
NICANOR CASTEEL and JUAN DEPRA, defendants,
NICANOR CASTEEL, defendant-appellant.
Facts:
Nicanor Casteel filed a fishpond application for a big tract of swamp
y land. Spouses Inocencia Deluao
and Felipe Deluao entered into a contract of service with Nicanor Cas
teel for the administration of
fishfond. In a decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Casteel was awarded with
the subject fishpond. Thereafter, Nicanor Casteel forbade Inocencia Deluao from
further administering the
fishpond, and ejected the latter s representative from the premises. Consequentl
y, spouses Deluao filed a
civil case for specific performance and damages against Casteel.
After the issues were joined, the case was set for trial. Then came a series of
postponements. The lower
court (Branch I, presided by Judge Enrique A. Fernandez) finally issued on Ma
rch 21, 1956 an order in
open court transferring the hearing to May 2 and 3, 1956 at 8:30 o clock in the
morning. And considering
the case was pending since April 3, 1951 and under any circumstance t
he Court will not entertain any
other transfer of hearing of this case and if the parties will not b
e ready on that day set for hearing, the
court will take the necessary steps for the final determination of this case.
The defendants, thru counsel, filed a motion for postponement. The low
er court (Branch II, presided by
Judge Gomez) issued an order that while the motion for postponement w
as filed with the conformity of
the counsel for plaintiff , the same should be referred back to Branch I, so tha
t the same may be disposed
therein.
On the scheduled date of hearing, that is, on May 2, 1956, the lowe
r court (Branch I, with Judge
The filing of the motion for new trial on January 7, 1958 was made out o
As regards respondent s failure to appear in court on the day set for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his
claim that it was due to the fact that early in the morning of tha
t date he had "a severe stomach ache,
followed by constant moving of bowel and vomiting and that as a consequence
he became very weak."
But while this might be, to a certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearan
ce in court, it is obviously
not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due time of the d
ate of the trial. Had he done so,
his clients would probably have tried to contact him in due time, an
d upon discovering that he was sick
they would have either gone to court to ask for the postponement of the trial, o
r they would have looked
for another lawyer to represent them in court.
16. Diman vs Alumbres : 131466 : November 27, 1998 :
FACTS:
The petition for review on certiorari in this case was initially dismissed by
Resolution dated January 14,
1998 but after deliberating on petitioners motion for reconsideration dated Feb
ruary 23, 1998, the private
respondents
comment thereon, the reply to the comment, as well as th
e record of the case itself, the
Court was convinced that the order of dismissal should be reconsidered and the p
etition reinstated. The
court accordingly promulgated a resolution to that effect on October 12, 1998, a
nd required respondents
to file their Comment on the petition within ten (10) days from noti
ce. Notice of the Resolution was duly
served on private respondents attorney on October 21, 1998. The latte
r filed a motion for extension of
time of thirty (30) days to file comment, counted from October 31. Th
e Court granted the extension
sought, but only for fifteen (15) days. The comment was filed late, o
n November 20, 1998, Counsel s
explanation is that he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to t
he other volume of legal works
similarly situated and school work of the undersigned as professor of
law and dean of the University of
Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would be granted. Howe
ver, he learned belatedly
that only a 15-day extension had been conceded. He forthwith completed the comm
ent and filed it, albeit
five days late.
ISSUE: Whether or not the comment should be admitted by the court
HELD:
The Court admits the late comment, but takes this occasion to reiterate the fami
liar doctrine that no party
has a right to an extension of time to comply with an obligation with
in the period set therefor by law;
motions for extension are not granted as a matter of course; their concession li
es in the sound discretion
of the Court exercised in accordance with the attendant circumstances;
the movant is not justified in
assuming that the extension sought will be granted, or that it will
be granted for the length of time
suggested by him. It is thus incumbent on any movant for extension to exercise
due diligence to inform
himself as soon as possible of the Court s action on his motion, by
time inquiry of the Clerk of
Court. Should he neglect to do so, he runs the risk of time running
out on him, for which he will have
nobody but himself to blame.
opposed. On November 27, the court denied the petition for lack of merit. Custom
built appealed.
ISSUE: WON it was proper for the CFI to deny the defendant s petition for relief
from judgment.
RULING: The city court s judgment as revived by the Court of First Instance must
be sustained.
At the start of the pre-trial, Custombuilt s attorney was present. But he uncere
moniously left the
courtroom. Counsel reasons that he had to leave because "he was summoned home al
l too suddenly" as
"his pregnant wife had been having labor pains" which "were cause for alarm" and
she finally delivered 5
days after.
Counsel did not have the foresight required of him. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule
20 of the Rules of
Court, both client and counsel must appear at the pre-trial. This is mandatory.
Failure of the client to
appear is ground for dismissal. If one representing his client, a corporation, w
as present, counsel could
have easily left word for the former to tell the judge that he was suddenly summ
oned to his home. If the
client were not present, then the case just the same would have been dismissed.
But, the point is that
allegedly someone summoned said attorney to go back home. If this were true, the
n it would have been
quite easy for the lawyer to have asked that man to stay around and tell the jud
ge or the clerk or the
branch deputy clerk of court of his predicament. Or, he himself could have as ea
sily told the judge, or
either clerk, or the adverse counsel, the court stenographer, the interpreter, t
he bailiff, or anyone for that
matter, of his inability to wait for the pre-trial. He failed to do anyone of th
ese.
In his petition for relief, Custombuilt s lawyer also made the statement that hi
s wife did not give birth until
five days later. It is unreasonable to assume that during the whole period his m
ind was in blank, such that
it was impossible for him to have taken steps to tell the court personally or ot
herwise that his absence
during the pre-trial was excusable. Again, he did not. He received copy of the d
ecision on November 10.
He did not file the petition for relief until November 14.
All of these facts point to one conclusion: lack of interest on the part of appe
llant to defend itself
against the complaint. Rather, the pattern of conduct discloses a desire to dela
y disposal of the present
case. Failure to prosecute is a ground for dismissal of the appeal and revival o
f the judgment of the city
court under Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
FACTS:
This is yet another instance of a member of the Philippine Bar, this time, respo
ndent Manuel N. Sanglay,
being administratively proceeded against for failure to file the brief
within the reglementary period for
appellants Benjamin Icalla, Rodolfo Soriano and Benjamin Cinco.
He was given the opportunity to explain in our February 3, 1972 resolution, whic
h reads thus: "For failure
to file brief for appellants Benjamin Icalla, Rodolfo Soriano and Benj
amin Cinco within the period which
expired on December 23, 1971, the Court resolved to [require] Atty. Manuel N. Sa
nglay to explain, within
ten (10) days from notice hereof, why disciplinary action should not
be taken against him."
1
It was not
until the end of that month that his manifestation and explanation came. He wou
ld absolve himself from
any blame as, in his view, no fault could be attributed to him.
As set forth in such pleading, this is how he would explain matters: "Upon recei
ving the notice from this
Honorable Court advising me to file the brief for the appellants, I immediately
contacted the parents of the
three appellants. Pablo Icalla and the father of Benjamin Cinco came but the mot
her of Rodolfo Soriano
failed to appear. At that time Rodolfo Soriano was already at large for he escap
ed from prison at the La
Union Provincial Jail. In our conference, the father of Benjamin Cinco reiterat
ed his former desire not to
appeal the case of his son. But later on, Pablo Icalla, father of appellant Benj
amin Icalla prevailed on the
father of Benjamin Cinco that they continue the appeal. According to Pablo Icall
a he had already engaged
the services of a good lawyer to prepare their brief. Pablo Icalla further infor
med me that he had already
taken all the transcript of the case from the stenographer."
He felt justified in concluding then: "My failure
therefore to file the brief for the appellants is attributable to the
fault of the accused themselves
represented by their parents. Their parents disauthorized me to prepare
and file the brief for the
appellants by engaging another lawyer to do the same. In so far as the appellant
, Rodolfo Soriano, I could
not have also filed his brief for the reason that he escaped from jail."
ISSUE: w/n there was negligence for failing to file the brief within the regleme
ntary period.
HELD:
In the light of the above, the most that can be admitted is that appellant s fai
lure to file the brief was not a
willful act on his part. At least his good faith cannot be impugned. Nonetheless
, the exculpation he seeks
cannot be granted. He knew that the period for filing the brief was running. He
was equally aware that this
Court expected that the matter will be taken care of by him, as he was the couns
el of record. There was
no other appearance. Under the circumstances, the least that was expec
municipal board, and that all the papers connected with the charge be transmitte
d to the Supreme Court
for action, "it being evident that the respondent, as a member of th
e Bar, violated his oath of office by
deceiving the court and consenting a falsehood to be committed."
On receipt of the report of Judge Diaz against Attorney Santos, the
court ordered it referred to the
Attorney-General for investigation, report, and recommendation. It wrote respond
ent a letter informing him
of the investigation and asking whether he will submit additional evid
ence. The respondent eventually
filed an answer denying the charge and requesting that he be given an opportunit
y to present evidence in
support of his defense.
It appears from the facts that respondent was the counsel for Iigo He
rnandez who was charged for
violating an ordinance for having willfully and unlawfully encouraged, tolerated
and permitted to be played
a game of chance and hazard commonly known as monte. Respondent entered
a plea of guilty for
Hernandez although he knew that the latter was a mere waiter and did not encour
age, tolerate, or permit
a game of "monte" to be played. The report of the Solicitor-General concludes wi
th the recommendation
that disciplinary action be taken against the respondent.
ISSUE
WON respondent violated his oath of office by deceiving the court and
consenting a falsehood to be
committed.
HELD
Yes. The court believes that there is no escaping the conclusion that the respon
dent attorney consented
to the doing of a falsehood and deceived the court when he had an
accused plead guilty to an offense
which he had not committed. The background of the administrative inves
tigation showing the
respondent s connection with prohibited games, under circumstances of the case,
can only be taken into
consideration in so far as it relates to the precise charge laid against him. Th
ere was a clear violation of
the lawyer s oath that he would do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court.
The court ordered that respondent Pascual Santos be suspended from the practice
of Law for a period of
three months.