Atty Barandon vs Atty Ferrer

Lawyers Act:

On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before
the start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened
Atty. Barandon saying, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng
pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogadona rit
o ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.

Lawyers Defense:

Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses:

(1) At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks against
Atty. Barandon, the MTC Daet was already in session. It was improbable that the
court did not take steps to stop, admonish, or cite Atty. Ferrer in direct contempt
for his behavior.
(2) Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations that
Atty. Ferrer was drunk on December 19, 2000 and that he degraded the law
profession. The latter had received various citations that speak well of his
character.

Courts Ruling:

Evidently, Atty. Ferrer uttered the statment with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate,
and discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and litigants
waiting for the start of hearing in court. These language is unbecoming a member of the
legal profession. The Court cannot countenance it.

Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum.[17] Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring
down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it.
Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to
express his indignation.

Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. is from the practice of law for one year
 Ng vs Atty. Alar

Lawyers Act:

Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed with the Labor
Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. On appeal, NLRCs First Division upheld the
dismissal. In his Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar used
improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the Labor Arbiter and the
ponente of the NLRC decision. Pertinent portions of the said MRMI states that the
decision were merely copied from the pleadings of respondent-appellees with very light
modification and that the labor arbiter was cross-eyed in his findings of fact.

Lawyers Defense:

Alar contended that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility applies only
suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on
disciplinary matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it. He also asserted that
the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to lawyers
practicing at the NLRC, the latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC
Commissioners are not judges nor justices and the Code of Judicial Conduct similarly
do not apply to them, not being part of the judiciary.

Courts Ruling:

The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral and
intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of
diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that
does not admit any justification.

In Uy v. Depasucat,[9] the Court held that a lawyer shall abstain from

scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
It must be remembered that the language vehicle does not run short of expressions which
are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.[10] A lawyer's language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful
as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession.[11]Submitting pleadings containing countless insults and diatribes against the
NLRC and attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, hardly measures to the
sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.

We find respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar GUILTY of violation of Canons 8 and 11 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is imposed a fine of P5,000.00.
 Sangalang vs IAC

Lawyers Act:

Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and Lutgarda Sangalang,
allegedly used intemperate and accusatory language in his motion for reconsideration.
The Court finds Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration, particularly, . .
. The Court not only put to serious question its own integrity and competence but also
jeopardized its own campaign against graft and corruption undeniably pervading the
judiciary . . . disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for.

Courts Ruling:

His suggestions that the Court might have been guilty of graft and corruption in acting on
these cases are not only unbecoming, but comes, as well, as an open assault upon the
Courts honor and integrity.

Atty. Sangco is entitled to his opinion, but not to a license to insult the Court with
derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta ad hominem. In that event, it is the
Courts duty "to act to preserve the honor and dignity .. and to safeguard the morals and
ethics of the legal profession."

We sought to hold Atty. Sangco in contempt, specifically, for resort to insulting language
amounting to disrespect toward the Court within the meaning of Section 1, of Rule 71, of
the Rules of Court. Clearly, however, his act also constitutes malpractice as the term is
defined by Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is (1) SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective from receipt hereof, and (2) ORDERED to pay a fine of P 500.00
 In the matter.. Atty Almacen

Lawyers Act:

Atty. Almacen, Legal Counsel of the Defendant in a legal Case entitled Antonio H. Calero,
Vs. Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, filed a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," in
protest against what he asserted as "a great injustice committed against his client by this
Supreme Court." He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal peopled by men
who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable
decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He ridicules
the members of this Court, saying that justice as administered by the present members
of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.

Courts Ruling:

On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms
as uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory.
It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts
and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and
respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has
always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.

In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have
known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the
time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court.
He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was
suspended indefinitely.
 Asean Pacific vs City of Urdaneta

Lawyers Act:

Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante, in their pleadings before us and the
Court of Appeals, unfairly called the Court of Appeals a court of technicalities [45] for validly
dismissing their defectively prepared petition. They also accused the Court of Appeals of
protecting, in their view, an incompetent judge.[46]

Lawyers Defense: In explaining the concededly strong language, Atty. Sahagun

further indicted himself. He said that the Court of Appeals dismissal of the case shows its
impatience and readiness to punish petitioners for a perceived slight on its dignity and
such dismissal smacks of retaliation and does not augur for the cold neutrality and
impartiality demanded of the appellate court.[47]

Courts Ruling:
Accordingly, we impose upon Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante a fine
of P2,000[48] each payable to this Court within ten days from notice and we remind them that
they should observe and maintain the respect due to the Court of Appeals and judicial
officers;[49] abstain from offensive language before the courts;[50] and not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record.[51] Similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

We IMPOSE a fine of P2,000 each on Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante
for their use of offensive language
JUDGE LACUROM vs ATTY JACOBA
Rule 11.05
In relation to Judge Lacuroms resolution in the Veneracion case, counsels Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba
and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba (respondents) filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 30,
2001 containing disrespectful, insulting, and humiliating contents. Following are some of the
words and phrases contained in the said moton: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial
process.

Lawyers Defense:
Velasco-Jacoba insists that she signed the 30 July 2001 motion only because of her husbands
request but she did not know its contents beforehand. Jacoba drafted the pleading but could not
sign because of his then suspension from the practice of law.
Jacoba denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July 2001 motion and claims that his name
does not appear in the said motion.

Courts Ruling:
The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hook. Firstly, his Answer with Second Motion for
Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wifes account. Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted
authorship of the motion by stating that he trained his guns and fired at the errors which he
perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental.

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges.[45] However, even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack
made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution. On its face, the Resolution
presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting law and
jurisprudence. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession.[46] The use of unnecessary
language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial
administration.[47]

In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely enjoined to use dignified
language but also to pursue the clients cause through fair and honest means. Shortly after the
filing of the 30 July 2001 motion but before its resolution, Jacoba assisted his client in instituting
two administrative cases against Judge Lacurom. As we have earlier noted, Civil Case No. 2836
was then pending before Judge Lacuroms sala. The Courts attention is drawn to the fact that
the timing of the filing of these administrative cases could very well raise the suspicion that the
cases were intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) years
effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the
practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.
In the matter of proceedings for disciplinary action against Atty. Almacen
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in a civil case but
Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but
failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. He appealed to the Court of
Appeals but motion was denied. He filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court
which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional. He filed before the Supreme
Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate as he claimed that it was useless to continue
practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas
for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable
violations of the Constitution with impunity.
Defense:
He argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00 without
knowing the reasons why and that his client became one of the sacrificial victims before the
altar of hypocrisy.
He also contends that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is
not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. The Supreme Court did not immediately act on
Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate.
Almacen, however, did not surrender his lawyers certificate though he now argues that he
chose not to.
Ruling:
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as
uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true
that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly
respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a
citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the
independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts.
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill
over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of
the duty of respect to courts.

In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known
that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place
of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to
blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
DE ESPINO VS ATTY PRESQUITO
Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complain charging respondentt"having employed fraud,
trickery and dishonest means in refusing to honor and pay late husband Virgilio Espino, when
he was still alive, the sum of P763,060.00" Respondent issues post dated checks as payment.
The 8 post-dated checks issued by respondent were all dishonored. Mr. Espino made repeated
demands for payment from respondent but the latter refused. The land was eventually titled in
the name of respondent and Mrs ares
Defense:
Respondent denied any wrongdoing, "fraud,trickery and dishonest means" with the late Mr.
Espino were totally false and baseless but does not deny the issuance of 8 check.
.Respondents claim that he and Mr. Espino, agreed that Mr Espino will not encash the checks
until the right of way problem has been resolved. In addition, respondent claims that the balance
would be offset with the cost he incurred when he defended Mr. Espinos son in a criminal case.
Ruling:
Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the eight dishonored checks, respondents
indifference to complainants entreaties for payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of
the bar and an officer of the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
by his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct towards complainant and her late husband, first
by allowing the eight (8) checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands
for payment until complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by deliberately
delaying the disposition of this case with dilatory tactics. Considering that the property of
complainant and her late husband is already in respondent and Mrs. Ares name, the injustice of
respondents different maneuvers to evade payment of the eight checks - due and unpaid since
1996 - becomes more manifest.
It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without
regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. the issuance of worthless
checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyers moral character in serious
doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar. ATTY. PEPITO
C. PRESQUITO is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for one (1) year, and ordered to immediately account with complainant regarding the sale
of the piece of land, which has been subdivided in the name of respondent and his business
partner.
FABROA VS PAGUINTO
An Information for Estafa was filed, As the joint affidavit-complaint did not indicate the
involvement of complainant, complainant filed a Motion to Quash the Information which the trial
court granted. complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO) was removed from the position. respondent and his group took
over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations
and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the duties of their positions. both
parties were ordered to submit position papers. Complainant filed hers, but respondent, despite
grant, on his motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper.
Ruling:
Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's conduct indicates a high
degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor
should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent's obstinate refusal
to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also
underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent's deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect
to their processes. The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the
practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he having
been found to have received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had
filed a case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his
ways. A more severe penalty this time is thus called for.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years from the
practice of law
 BUGARING AND RBBI VS ESPANOL
The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing. During the hearing of this case,
plaintiffs and counsel were present together with one (1) operating a video camera who was
taking pictures of the proceedings of the case while counsel. the counsel sent out the
cameraman the fact that although the proceedings are open to the public and that it being a
court of record, and since its permission was not sought, such situation was an abuse of
discretion of the Court.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his documentary evidence
and was raring to argue as in fact he was already perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga
has not yet finished with his manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly
procedure, the Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly
proceeding.

While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt like doing so. Thus, the
Court declared him out of order, at which point, Atty. Bugaring flared up and uttered words
insulting the Court; such as: `that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of
certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court; that he was going to
move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being antagonistic to his client,' and
other invectives were hurled to the discredit of the Court.

Defense:
Judge Dolores S. Espaol had no factual and legal basis in citing him in direct contempt of
court, and that said Order was null and void for being in violation of the Constitution and other
pertinent laws and jurisprudence. It would also show that he was polite and respectful towards
the court as he always addressed the court with the phrase "your honor please." Petitioner
argued that while it might appear that he was carried by his emotions in espousing the case of
his client - by persisting to have his documentary evidence marked despite the respondent
judge's contrary order - he did so in the honest belief that he was bound to protect the interest of
his client to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.
Ruling:
Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility which insists on a lawyer to "exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Lawyers
should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice.
Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes
such lawyer's duty." The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to
the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders,
and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice. Direct
contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge. The records show that
petitioner was cited in contempt of court during the hearing in the sala of respondent judge, and
he even filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same day.
Manila Pest Control vs. Workmens Compensation Commission (WCC)
Atty. Manuel Corpuz impugned the delivery of the decision involving a complaint filed by Mario
Abitria, an employee of MPC who suffered pulmonary tuberculosis because of his the nature of
work involving strenuous physical exertion and other factors of work such as the lowering of his
resistance, for compensation. The decision was sent to a certain Attorney Manuel Camacho but
care of petitioner's counsel, Attorney Manuel Corpuz.
Atty. Corpuz refused to receive the said decision alleging that he was no longer handling the
case. Atty. Corpuz, instead instructed Mr. Guzman to deliver the said decision to Atty. Camacho
since it was already Atty, Camacho who was handling the case, and Atty. Camacho, according
to Atty. Corpuz, even had the records of the case." In view of such instruction, it was further
noted, Guzman "went the office of Atty. Camacho, but since Atty. Camacho was not around he
handed the copy of the decision to the receiving clerk therein, who received it as evidenced by
the stamp pad bearing the name of the Law Office.
Issue: WON Atty. Corpuz misused the processes of the Court to delay the delivery of justice
Held: With treble costs against petitioner to be paid by his counsel, Attorney Manuel A. Corpuz.

Petitioner, and petitioner alone, could be expected to furnish such a cause. Who would benefit
thereby? The answer cannot be in doubt. Through such circumstance, wether intended or
otherwise, a basis was laid for at least a delay of the fulfillment of a just claim. For it is to be
noted that there is no, as there could not be any, valid ground for denying compensation to
respondent Abitria on the facts as found. Considering how great and pressing the laborer's need
for the compensation due him was and the consequent temptation to settle for less if in the
meanwhile, the money he had the right to expect, was not forthcoming, petitioner, as the
employer liable, had everything to gain and nothing to lose by such a turn of events. Even if it
were an honest mistake, the consequences were still deplorable.

It is one thing to exert to the utmost one's ability to protect the interest of one's client. It is quite
another thing, and this is to put it at its mildest, to take advantage of any unforeseen turn of
events, if not to create one, to delay if not to defeat the recovery of what is justly due and
demandable, especially so, when as in this case, the obligee is a necessitous and poverty-
stricken man suffering from a dreaded disease, that unfortunately afflicts so many of our
countrymen and even more unfortunately requires an outlay far beyond the means of our
poverty stricken masses.
MALONZO vs. PRINCIPE
In a Complaint for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Julian
Malonso claimed that Atty. Pete Principe, without any authority entered his appearance as
Malonsos counsel in the expropriation proceedings initiated by the National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR). In addition, he complained that Atty. Principe, after illegally representing him in
the said case, claimed forty (40%) of the selling price of his land to the NAPOCOR by way of
attorneys fees and, further claimed to be a co-owner of Malonsos property.
Defense: Complaint having been motivated by pure selfishness and greed, and the Resolution
itself invalid for having failed to comply with Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. According to the
respondent, the Investigating Commissioner continued to investigate the instant case despite
the lapse of three months provided under Section 8 of Rule 139-B, without any extension
granted by the Supreme Court.
Issue: WoN Atty. Principe violated Canon 12.04
Held:
This case is DISMISSED and considered CLOSED. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is
enjoined to comply with the procedure outlined in Rule 139-B in all cases involving the
disbarment and discipline of attorneys.
The Court views with disapproval the fashion by which the IBP Board of Governors, with a
fellow lawyer and fellow governors reputation and good name at stake, cavalierly brushed aside
the procedural rules outlined no less by this Court for the discipline and protection of its
members. The IBP, more than anyone, knows that the success of a lawyer in his profession
depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything, which will harm his good name, is to be
deplored.[25] And yet the IBP Board of Governors, despite clear evidence to the contrary, and
without any remorse, even asserted that due process was observed and the Rules governing
the Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys were faithfully observed and complied.
Normally, non-compliance with the procedural rules would result in the remand of the
case.[26] However, on many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and the expeditious
administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them for
further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand
of the case, or when public interest demands an early disposition of the case, or where the trial
court had already received all the evidence of the parties.[27] In view of the delay in resolving the
instant complaint against the respondent, and in the interest of justice and speedy disposition of
cases, the Court opts to resolve the same based on the records before it.[28]
SAMBAJON et al vs. ATTY. SUING

Complainants have sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing (respondent) on the grounds of
deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.[2]

Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous labor case in which the Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel
of their employer Microplast, Inc. A judgment in favor of them was rendered by the
Labor Arbiter and a writ of execution was issued against Microplast, Inc.

Four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having
signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the
considerations therefor. They subsequently filed an administrative complaint alleging that
respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, frustrated the
implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious
documents. A Complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the grounds of
deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility was
also filed.

During the administrative hearings before the IBP Commissioner, it was apparent that Atty. Suing
was coaching his client to prevent himself from being incriminated. It was also revealed that the
Release Waiver and Quitclaims allegedly signed were not the same documents originally
presented to the employees to be signed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Suing is an act arguably violative of the
Lawyers Code of Ethics

HELD: Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of negligence and gross misconduct and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months

The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or that
extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection
use for securing and preserving their rights. All that is required is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or
that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias.

Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite
of negligence. A lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of practice
expected of men of good intentions. He thus owes entire devotion to the interest of his client,
warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning,
skill, and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from him, save by the rules of
law legally applied. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is eternal
diligence to the cause of the client.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the administration of justice. He is
an instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes
the administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While the Commission on Bar Discipline is
not a court, the proceedings therein are nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary
action being in reality an investigation by the Court into the misconduct of its officers or an
examination into his character.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or

object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as
evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used
in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing
penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction;

(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading
prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;

(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or
court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
courts;

(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of
its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining

from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his
person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in
order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings
in, criminal cases;

(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing
or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the
higher penalty shall be imposed.

Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in
addition to the penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding
public office.

Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

PNB vs. UY TENG PIAO
Facts:
Uy Teng Piao was sued by PNB for non-payment of obligations at the CFI of Manila and said
court rendered judgment in favour of PNB for the sum of P17,232.42 with interest of seven percent
per annum from June 1,1924. The court ordered the defendant appellant to deposit the money
due with the clerk of the court within three months from thedate of judgment. In case of failure to
pay, the mortgage properties should be sold at auction in accordance with law and the proceeds
to be applied to the payment of the judgment. The defendant failed to comply with the payment
order and the properties were auctioned by the sheriff of Manila for a total of P1, 300 with PNB
as the buyer.
PNB secured from defendant a waiver of the latters right to redeem one of the properties.
The total amount generated with the resale of the lots amounted to P 11, 300. On August 1, 1930,
PNB instituted another court action for the recovery of the balance of the judgment amounting to
P11, 574.38with interest at seven percent per annum.

Defense : The defendant claimed that in exchange for his waiver of his right to redeem the first
property resold by PNB, the bank would not collect from him the balance of the judgment.
Issue : Whether or not lawyers shall avoid being a witness for a client
Ruling :

With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, we should like to observe that although the
law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the
courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they
should withdraw from the active management of the case. (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, p. 148.)
Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics reads as follows:

When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to merely formal matters, such as the
attestation or custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave the trial of the case
to other counsel. Except when essential to the ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid
testifying in court in behalf of his client
NESTLE PHIL vs. SANCHEZ

From July 8-10, union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent
Labor Union, who fileda case in court intensified their pickets that they had been conducting
since June 17 in front of the Padre Fauragate of the SC

Despite of the warning given by the court to their leaders and counsel, the picketing continued

The union members are obstructing the access to and egress from the courts premises. They
have also constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set up kitchens and littered
the place. They took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers

ISSUE: WoN the rallyists must be held with contempt

HELD: The contempt charges were dismissed

The Counsel of the union members apologized to the court and promised that the incident will
not be repeated again

We realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not knowledgeable in her
intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They are not aware that even as the rights of free
speech and of assembly are protected by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence
courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer
within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence
the course of justice constitutes contempt of court. 6 The duty and responsibility of advising
them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record. Atty.
Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court, did his best to demonstrate to the
pickets the untenability of their acts and posture. Let this incident therefore serve as a reminder
to all members of the legal profession that it is their duty as officers of the court to properly
apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice, and to
labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their members.
 TIMOTEO CRUZ VS FRANCISCO SALVA

Complaint:
Cruz filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction against Salva, in his
capacity as City Fiscal, to restrain the latter from continuing with the preliminary investigation he
was conducting, as the same was conducted not in Salvas office, but in the session hall of the
Municipal Court evidently to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding,
including members of the press; a number of microphones were also installed, reporters were
everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures.
Defense:
The purpose of the investigation was only to acquaint himself with and evaluate the evidence
involved in the affidavits and confessions of witnesses by questioning them.

Ruling:
Salva was publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and
sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation, which the
Court considered and found to be contempt of court.
Salva could well have conducted the investigation in his office, quietly, unobtrusively and
without much fanfare, much less publicity. He committed what was regarded a grievous error
and poor judgment for which the Court failed to find any excuse or satisfactory explanation. His
actuations went well beyond the bounds of prudence, discretion and good taste.
It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the
authorities, even when it is tried in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed,
even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by this Tribunal, the
whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this Court, in the interest of justice, is
constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its repetition by meting
an appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one liable.
 EDUARDO MARTELINO VS JOSE ALEJANDRO
Facts:
Major Martelino is charged with the violation of the 94th and 97th Articles of War, as a result of
the alleged shooting on March 18, 1968 of some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando
training on the island of Corregidor.
Complaint:
Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of the general court-martial, following the
latter's admission that he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident. Martelino
contended that the case had received such an amount of publicity in the press and other news
media and in fact was being exploited for political purposes in connection with the presidential
election on November 11, 1969 as to imperil his right to a fair trial.

Defense:
Respondents assert that despite the publicity which the case had received, no proof has been
presented showing that the court-martial's president's fairness and impartiality have been
impaired. On the contrary, they claim, the petitioner's own counsel expressed confidence in
the "integrity, experience and background" of the members of the court.

Ruling:
In contrast the spate of publicity in this case before us did not focus on the guilt of the
petitioners but rather on the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a
"massacre" of Muslim trainees.
If there was a "trial by newspaper" at all, it was not of the petitioners but of the Government.
Absent here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the accused from massive
publicity encouraged by those connected with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to
control the release of information or to remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it until
the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have subsided. Indeed we cannot say that the trial of the
petitioners was being held under circumstances which did not permit the observance of those
imperative decencies of procedure which have come to be identified with due process.
RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL OF IN THE
SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMER
PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA.

Oppositors (Estrada and IBP):

The live TV and radio coverage of trial will violate the sub judice rule and that, based from
previous impeachment trial, live media coverage will only pave the way for so-called "expert
commentary which can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the
Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the other.
Petitioners:
The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only
later will they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated
its decision in every case to which the recording pertains. The master film shall be deposited in
the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical
preservation and exhibition pursuant to law.
Ruling:
An audio-visual recording of the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan was
ordered to be made subject to several conditions i.e. the audio-visual recordings is for
documentary purposes only, the live broadcast of the recordings before decision is promulgated
by SB is prohibited, etc.
There are several reasons for such televised recording. First, the hearings are of historic
significance. They are an affirmation of our commitment to the rule that "the King is under no
man, but he is under God and the law." Second, the Estrada cases involve matters of vital
concern to our people who have a fundamental right to know how their government is
conducted. This right can be enhanced by audio visual presentation. Third, audio-visual
presentation is essential for the education and civic training of the people.
Concerns about the regularity and fairness of the trial -- which, it may be assumed, is the
concern of those opposed to, as much as of those in favor of, televised trials - will be addressed
since the tapes will not be released for public showing until after the decision of the cases by the
Sandiganbayan. By delaying the release of the tapes, much of the problem posed by real time
TV and radio broadcast will be avoided.
Thus, many important purposes for preserving the record of the trial can be served by audio-
visual recordings without impairing the right of the accused to a fair trial.
 FOODSPHERE INC., VS ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR.
Cordero purportedly found a colony of worms inside the can of liver spread by CDO and
Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The Cordero family sued the company for P150,000
for damages, but the companies did not agree to the demands.

This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the
petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their
complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty.
Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his
articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document.

Complaint:
Despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent still continued with his attacks against complainant and its
products.

Respondent, in his radio program Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB,
announced the holding of a supposed contest sponsored by said program.
Ang mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest, o, aling
liver spread ang may uod?
Respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which put complainant in bad
light. Articles with caption: "KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!" ; "IBA PANG
PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!"; "DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO."
Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his column LAGING HANDA
published in another tabloid, BAGONG TIKTIK, with the following articles:11 (a) "Uod sa
liver spread," "Uod, itinanggi ng CDO," "Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy," , etc.
Defense:
Respondent claims that he was prompted by his sense of public service, that is, to expose the
defects of complainants products to the consuming public.

Ruling:
Atty. Melanio Mauricio is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three years.
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates: A
lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.
For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.

*yan lang talaga ang decision ng SC na related dun sa rule 13.02

KHALYXTO MAGLASANG VS PEOPLE, PRESIDING JUDGE ERNESTO
TEMPLADO
(A complaint against justices cannot be filed with the Office of the President.)

Marceliano L. Castellano for petitioner.

Maglasang was convicted in the. His counsel, Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for
certiorari through registered mail. Due to non-compliance with the requirements, the
court dismissed the petition and a motion for reconsideration.

Lawyers Act:

Atty. Castellano sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he accused the five
justices of the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering
unjust judgments. He accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for being
Marcos appointees, and robbing the Filipino people genuine justice and democracy. He also
said that the SC is doing this to protect the judge who was impleaded in the petition and for
money reasons. He alleges further that the court is too expensive to be reached by ordinary
men. The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous.

Lawyers Defense:
In his "Opposition", Atty. Castellano claimed that the complaint "was a constructive criticism
intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the Justices
concerned, as Respondents . Atty. Castellano further disputed the authority and jurisdiction of
the Court in issuing the Resolution requiring him to show cause inasmuch as "they are
Respondents in this particular case and no longer as Justices and as such they have no more
jurisdiction to give such order." Thus, according to him, "the most they (Justices) can do by the
mandate of the law and procedure is to answer the complaint satisfactorily so that they will not
be punished in accordance with the law just like a common tao."
Ruling:
Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano is found guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT and IMPROPER
CONDUCT as a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court. He is also SUSPENDED from
the practice of law throughout the Philippines for six (6) months.
In filing the "complaint" against the justices of the Court's Second Division, even the most basic
tenet of our government system the separation of powers between the judiciary, the
executive, and the legislative branches has been lost on Atty. Castellano. We therefore take
this occasion to once again remind all and sundry that "the Supreme Court is supreme the
third great department of government entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate
with finality all justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency may pass
upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust.'" 24 Consequently, and owing to the foregoing, not
even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the
Court's acts.