CANON 10
by Rowneylin Sia
ATTY. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. OSCAR
PAGUINTO
(A.C. No. 6723, March 15, 2010)
FACTS:
On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was
Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of
Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October
14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the
Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the
General Manager. The notice was signed by respondent.
At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly
presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L.
Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the
then current Board, Gerango, complainants predecessor,
as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself
Chair, appointed others to replace the removed directors,
and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took
over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pump
houses, water facilities, and operations. On even date,
respondent sent letter-notices to complainant and the
four removed directors informing them of their removal
from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and
advising them to cease and desist from further
discharging the duties of their positions.Complainant
Page 1 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
HELD:
Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes
utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
Courts Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively". Respondents obstinate
refusal to comply with the Courts orders "not only
betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also
underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders
which is only too deserving of reproof.
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and
processes and respondents 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
for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath, effective
immediately.
ISSUE:
Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in the
complaint amount to a violation of 10.01, 02, 03?
HELD:
No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all
his dealings, however this duty does not require him to
advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her
clients opponent. Villalon was not duty bound to build
the case for Fernandez. The cause of action chosen by
Palacios was for the annulment of the deed of donation.
Palacios had told her that the deed of sale was void for
lack of consideration. It was not a necessary fact for his
case. Only the clients operative facts and not the other
evidentiary facts need to be included in the Complaint. It
is correct for the respondent to argue that pointing out
the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute Sale
was a matter of defense which the defendant in said civil
case can freely point out to the trial judge through his
own pleadings. It cannot be argued that there was
suppression of evidence on the part of the respondent as
she is not the only person who had access or possession
of the said Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document
readily available to the general public through the
Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was
fully known to herein complainant as he was supposed
to be a party to the said Deed of Absolute Sale. In other
words, a person cannot possibly suppress the existence
of a document which everyone else, especially the
opposing party-litigant, knows about.
CANON 11
by Allan Kristofer Pormento
NG v. ALAR
(ADM Case No. 7952, November 22, 2006)
CANON 10
by Iran Salvado
FERNANDEZ v. DE RAMOS-VILLALON
(A.C. No. 7024, February 27, 2009)
FACTS:
In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati, sought
the help of Fernandez to help him in a land grabbing
case. Palacios won the case and he allegedly agreed to
pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005, Palacios bumped into one
Mrs. Lirio and to his surprise, he found out that
FACTS:
Ng is one of the respondents in a labor case,
Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the labor case.
The case was filed when employees of the Ng Company
alleged that they did not receive their service incentives
because the Ng Company refused to pay because a strike
was conducted on company premises hampering
entrance and exit into the area. It was later found that the
incentive pay had been paid. When the NLRC dismissed
the appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion to Inhibit,
Page 2 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR.
CANON 11
by Aristotle Cruz
HELD:
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults
attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and
intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be
bought. He used improper and offensive language,
which cannot be justified. Though a lawyers language
may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be
dignified and respectful. He deserves not only a warning
but also a fine of P 5,0000. The counter-complaint is
dismissed because there was no position paper submitted
to substantiate the claims.
CANON 11
by Allan Kristofer Pormento
GUERRERO v. VILLAMOR
(A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25, 1998)
FACTS:
Carlos and his counsel, Guerrero, charged
respondent with gross ignorance of the law and
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment after they lost a
civil and a criminal case tried by respondent. They were
also thwarted on appeal. However, in the pleadings
before the CA, they used abusive language in describing
the respondents acts, hence, respondent judge cited
them for direct contempt, which was later set aside by
the SC.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga, the
ponente in the Fudot case, be inhibited because it was
alleged that he received 10 million pesos from Chan in
exchange for a favorable decision. De La Serna suggests
that Tinga abandoned the doctrine in Lim v. Jorge to
accommodate Chan. He also said that Tinga prioritized
the case and that Chan already knew of the outcome of
the case before the decision was promulgated. Chan
related that he approached De La Serna for the purpose
of amicably settling the case, and offered him to be their
retainer in Bohol. He denied having said to De La Serna
that he had already spent so much money for the
Supreme Court.
HELD:
The case was dismissed. The order of direct
contempt may only be considered as an error of
judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged
for mere errors of judgment, in the absence of showing
of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. Moreover,
judges cannot be held to account criminally, civilly, or
administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by
them in good faith.
CANON 12
by Reynaldo Dennison Tayag
ISSUE:
Whether or not Serna is guilty of indirect
contempt.
HELD:
Yes. Contempt is defined as a disobedience to
the court by setting up opposition to its authority, justice
and dignity. It is not only a willful disregard or
disobedience of the courts orders but it also brings
PEOPLE v. JARDIN
(G.R. No. L-33037-42, August 17, 1983)
FACTS:
The criminal prosecutions originated from a
letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon
requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary
criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Page 3 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
CANON 12
by Reynaldo Dennison Tayag
GARCIA v. FRANCISCO
(A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993)
FACTS:
In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on
October 6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the
disbarment of Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco. On March 9,
1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her husband Godofredo,
the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa and Magdalena
Baetiong leased a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee
for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964. Despite
repeated verbal and written demands, Lee refused to
vacate after the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that
he had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years
and the right of pre-emption over the property. In this
disbarment case, the complainant claims that Lees
counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced various suits
before different courts to thwart Garcias right to regain
her property and that all these proceedings were decided
against Lee. The proceedings stemmed from the said
lease contract and involved the same issues and parties,
thus violating the proscription against forum-shopping.
The respondent, in his comment, says that he asserted in
defense of his clients rights only such remedies as were
authorized by law. That On March 29, 1989, Lee,
through Francisco, filed a complaint against Garcia and
the other lessors for specific performance and reconveyance with damages. Thus began more filing of
complaints and dismissals of cases as follows: On June
9, 1989, Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The case was dismissed on August 10, 1989. On May
29, 1989, Garcia and the other lessors filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer against Lee. On September 5,
1989, judge Bautista issued a resolution rejecting this
allegation on the ground that the issues before the two
courts were separate and different. On October 24, 1989,
Lee, through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge
Bautista, Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6, 1990,
Lee through Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction with
the Court of Appeals against Judge Vera, Judge Singzon,
Garcia and the other lessors.
On June 14, 1990,
Judge Singzon decided the case in favor of complainant
Garcia and the other lessors. Lee did not appeal. Instead,
on, June 21, 1990, through Francisco again, he filed a
petition against Judge Singzon and the other lessors for
certiorari and annulment of the decision of such case. On
September 27, 1991, Lee, through Francisco, filed a
motion to inhibit Judge Singzon and to defer the hearing
of the motion then finally, Lee, still through Francisco,
filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
against Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to set aside and
declare the writs of execution in Civil Case No. 1455.
This was dismissed on August 4, 1992, and Lee, through
Francisco, filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of
recourse to the courts.
Page 4 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
HELD:
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of
truth and the administration of justice. The cause of the
respondents client is obviously without merit. The
respondent was aware of this fact when he willfully
resorted to the gambits summarized above, continuously
seeking relief that was consistently denied, as he should
have expected. By grossly abusing his right of recourse
to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had
been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the
obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or
proceedings as appear to him to be just and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable
under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any
man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name
of an honorable profession and has proved himself
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer
of the Court.
CANON 12
by Desserie Marie Guillarte
CAPT. CABAGUI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD DIVISION
(G.R. No. L-38377, October 15, 1975)
FACTS:
Under its Resolution of November 20, 1974, the
Court, acting on a third petition for review of a Court of
Appeals decision affirming petitioners conviction of the
crime of malversation of public funds, as filed on
November 13, 1974 by his attorney, Eugenio M.
Millado, with address at Koronadal, South Cotabato,
ordered that said petition be expunged from the records
and required Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause
within ten (10) days from notice hereof why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for trifling with
the Court by filing this third petition despite previous
resolutions of this Court. In its previous Resolution of
May 8, 1974 referring to the first two petitions filed by
respondent Millado on behalf of the same petitioner, the
Court had dismissed the secondpetition (filed on March
18, 1974) by respondent Millado in the guise of a new
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction but
which merely raised again the same questions in his first
petition (filed on January 9, 1974) seeking to set aside
petitioners conviction for malversation of public funds,
by decision of the court of first instance of Misamis
Oriental dated June 20, 1963 as affirmed with
modification by the Court of Appeals decision dated
June 8, 1973, for alleged lack of jurisdiction and praying
for reversal of the conviction or for a reduction of his
criminal liability by finding appellant-petitioner guilty of
technical malversation only for the amount of P1,161.65.
Said first petition had been denied on January 15, 1974
by virtue of the petition having been filed late by 4
months and 25 days beyond the last date for filing which
fell due since August 15, 1973.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Millado is guilty of
violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
CANON 12
by Desserie Marie Guillarte
VDA. DE BACALING v. LAGUNA & HON.
ROVIRA
(G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973)
FACTS:
Private respondent Hector Laguda is the
registered owner of a residential land known as lot No.
3508 situated at La Paz, Iloilo City many years back,
petitioner and her late husband, Dr. Ramon Bacaling,
with the acquiescence of private respondent Laguda,
constructed a residential house on a portion of said lot
fronting Huevana Street, paying a monthly rental of
P80.00. Unable to pay the lease rental from July 1959 to
September 1961, 5otaling P2,160.00, an action for
ejectment (Civil Case No. 6823) was filed by private
respondent Laguda against petitioner in her capacity as
judicial administratrix of the estate of her late husband,
Dr. Bacaling, in the City Court of Iloilo City. The filing
of said case spawned various court suits. Petitioner on
July 23, 1962, filed certiorari proceedings in this Court
(G.R. No. L-20061) but was dismissed for lack of merit
on August 3, 1962. Petitioner on November 12, 1962,
filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition
for certiorari with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No.
6162) but the same was dismissed on December 1, 1962.
Unsuccessful in her motion for reconsideration,
petitioner went to the Court of Appeals by way of
certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 31882-R) but her petition was
dismissed by that Court on March 7, 1967.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as
judicial administratrix prior to her discharge or removal
are valid and binding upon her successor.
HELD:
Such a view is not tenable. Under Section 3,
Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioners lawful acts
before the revocation of her letters of administration or
before her removal shall have the same validity as if
there was no such revocation or removal. It is
elementary that the effect of revocation of letters
testamentary or of administration is to terminate the
authority of the executor or administrator, but the acts of
the executor or administrator, done in good faith prior to
the revocation of the letters, will be protected, and a
similar protection will be extended to rights acquired
under a previous grant of administration. The petitioner
Page 5 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
CANON 13
by Maxi Fernandez
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO,
FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
(ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 09, 2007)
FACTS:
The administrative case has its roots from the
case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the
sala of Judge Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of
Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis Bucalon, was found to be
guilty of homicide and not murder with the evidence as
basis. Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to
fix that amount of bail bond, with which Senior state
prosecutor and deputized prosecutor of the case Atty.
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is nonbailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for
reconsideration which was consequently denied. Hence,
instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article in the
August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily.
Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, after he was
ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this
time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked once again
Judge Tan and his disposition on the proceedings of
People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the
Code of professional conduct.
HELD:
Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the
code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02
which states that a lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending
to arouse public opinion for or against a party. That
instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies
before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity
and authority of the court and the presiding judge, as
well as promoted distrust in the administration of justice
when he resorted to media and declared his complaints
there. Atty. Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of
Canon 11, when he disrespected the courts and the
judicial officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not submit
grievances against a judge to proper authorities only.
CANON 13
by Maxi Fernandez
Page 6 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS