Cobb Perez v Lantin
Young v Batuegas
Facts:
Complainant Atty. Young is the private prosecutor in a criminal
case for murder, entitled People of the Philippines v Arana, pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On December 13, 2000, the
respondents Batuegas and Llantino are the counsel for accused, filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the accused has
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he is now
under detention. Upon personal verification with the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) complainant learned that he surrendered only on
December 14, 2000.
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila,
calendared the motion on December 15, 2000 despite the lack of
notice of hearing to the private complainant, violation of the 3-day
notice rule, and the failure to attach the Certificate of Detention.
Respondents declared that on December 13, 2000, upon
learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they
filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail with the trial court. Then
they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the
NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they
arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of
detention indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14,
2000. They argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor
falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has voluntarily
surrendered and was detained at the NBI. As regards the lack of notice
of hearing, they contend that complainant, as private prosecutor, was
not entitled to any notice. Nevertheless, they furnished the State and
City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing thereof.
Moreover, the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed under
Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Susa argues that he was no longer in court when
his co-respondents filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail.
However, the presiding judge instructed her to receive the Motion
subject to the presentation of the Certificate of Detention before the
hearing.
The instant case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.
Issue:
WON the respondents would be disbarred or be suspended for
failing to observe the 3-day notice rule.
Ruling:
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty.
Batuegas and Atty. Llantino be suspended from the practice of their
profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6) months
from receipt and the complaint against Atty. Susa, upon the other
hand, is hereby recommended dismissed for lack of merit.
This was approved and adopted by the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline that respondents Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of
deliberate falsehood.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according
to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to his clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer
of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the
law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving
at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to
expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading
before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients
rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his
clients cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
In the case at bar, the prosecution was served with notice of
hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date.
Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed
to show any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day
notice rule. Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of
procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
While respondent clerk of court should not be made
administratively liable for including the Motion in the calendar of the
trial court, considering that it was authorized by the presiding judge.
However, he is reminded that his administrative functions, although
not involving the discretion or judgment of a judge, are vital to the
prompt and sound administration of justice.16 Thus, he should not
hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on the
part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of
procedure.
Santos v Llamas
Payment of IBP dues required to practice law; Misrepresentation of
payment of IBP dues violates the Code of Professional Responsibility
Facts:
A complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
membership dues was filed against Atty. Francisco R. Llamas by Atty.
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. According to him, Atty. Llamas, for a number of
years now, has not indicated his proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. in his
pleadings and has not paid his professional tax. He also raised Atty.
Llamas’ track record; he was dismissed as Pasay City Judge and was
convicted of estafa sometime in 1995.
Atty. Llamas denied the allegations and said that the Supreme
Court dismissal decision was set aside and reversed and he was even
promoted from City Judge of Pasay City to Regional Trial Court Judge of
Makati. On the issue of him being delinquent in dues, he said that he is
exempt being a Senior Citizen and that his practice is only “limited”.
Nonetheless, if despite such honest belief of being covered by the
exemption, he is willing at any time to pay his past dues.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines of Governors passed a
resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner which found Atty. Llamas guilty, thus
should be suspended for three months until he pays his IBP dues.
Issue:
WON respondent can still continue to practice law in spite of
non-payment of his Bar membership dues.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law
for ONE (1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
Payment of dues required to practice law
1. Rule 139-A Sec.9 provides that every member of the Integrated Bar
shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine
with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as
a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof. Sec 10 further
provides that default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall
warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar. A default in
such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the
name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
2. Lawyers can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues,
and it does not matter that his practice is “limited”. While senior citizens
are granted exemption from the payment of individual income taxes,
the exemption does not include payment of membership or association
dues.
Misrepresentation of payment of IBP dues violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility
3. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) states that
a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
4. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP
dues to the Rizal Chapter, Atty. Llamas is guilty of violating the CPR. His
failure to pay his IBP dues and misrepresentation in the pleadings merit
the most severe penalty. However, in view of his advanced age and his
willingness to pay his dues, the court believes that a penalty of one year
or until he has paid his IBP dues would suffice.
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas
A.C. No. 4749. January 20, 2000

Facts:
Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
membership dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of
years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data
in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he
has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand,
respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
“limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is
exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this
exemption is the payment of membership dues.
Held:
GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months
shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a
period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the
delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter
whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law.
Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include
exemption from payment of membership or association dues.
In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and
thereby misprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid
his IBP dues to the Rizal Chpater, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP
dues, whichever is later.
De leon v Castelo
Facts:
The Government brought suit to correct the transfer
certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land located in
Malabon City then registered in the names of defendants Spouses Lim
Hio and Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a public alley and on
a portion of the Malabon Navotas River shoreline to the extent. The
suit, entitled Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional
Executive Director, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
v. Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, Gorgonia Flores, and the Registrar
of Deeds of Malabon City, was docketed as Civil Case No. 4674MN of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, in Malabon City.
De Leon joined in this Civil Case as a voluntary intervenor, now
accuses the respondent, the counsel of the defendants in the said Civil
Case, with the serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and
falsification warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney
for allegedly committed by his filing for defendants Spouses Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu of various pleadings (that is, answer with
counterclaim and cross-claim in relation to the main complaint; and
answer to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-
claim) despite said spouses being already deceased at the time of filing.
Respondent also made a mockery of the aforesaid judicial
proceedings by representing dead persons therein who, he falsely
made to appear, as contesting the complaints, counter-suing and
cross-suing the adverse parties.
Respondent explained that the children of Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu, William and Leonardo Lim who had engaged him as
attorney to represent the Lim family, and that they were already
actively managing the family business, and now co-owned the
properties by virtue of the deed of absolute sale their parents, Spouses
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, had executed in their favor. That because of
the execution of the deed of absolute sale, William and Leonardo Lim
had since honestly assumed that their parents had already caused the
transfer of the TCTs to their names. Respondent consequently
truthfully stated in the motion seeking an extension to file responsive
pleading the fact that it was "the family of the defendants" that had
engaged him, and that he had then advised "the children of the
defendants" to seek the assistance. He (Atty. Castelo) prepared the
initial pleadings based on his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were then still living. Had he known that they were already
deceased, he would have most welcomed the information and would
have moved to substitute Leonardo and William Lim as defendants for
that reason.
Issue:
WON the respondent violate the letter and spirit of the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in making
the averments in the pleadings of the defendants.
Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that the respondent did not misrepresent
that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living. On the contrary,
the respondent directly stated in the answer to the complaint in
intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the
clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were already deceased.
The respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners
of the properties when he filed the answer with counterclaim and
crossclaim and having made clear at the start that the Spouses Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu were no longer the actual owners of the affected
properties due to the transfer of ownership even prior to the
institution of the action, and that the actual owners (i.e., Leonardo and
William Lim) needed to be substituted in lieu of said spouses, whether
the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living or already
deceased as of the filing of the pleadings became immaterial. And,
lastly, De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that the Spouses Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the action as a
voluntary intervenor charged him with notice of all the other persons
interested in the litigation. He also had an actual awareness of such
other persons, as his own complaint in intervention, supra, bear out in
its specific allegations against Leonardo Lim and William Lim, and their
respective spouses. Thus, he could not validly insist that the
respondent committed any dishonesty or falsification in relation to him
or to any other party.
In re Sotto
Facts:
A proceeding for contempt of our court against the respondent
Atty. Vicente Sotto, who was required by their Court on December 7,
1948, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt to
court for having issued a written statement in connection with the
decision of this Court in In re Angel Parazo for contempt of court, which
statement, as published in the Manila Times and other daily
newspapers of the locality.
He stated in the newspaper that our High Tribunal has not only
erroneously interpreted said law, but the incompetency of narrow
mindedness on the majority of its members, and that the only remedy
to put an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the
Supreme Court, to have the complete reorganization of the Supreme
Court.
This Court could have rendered a judgment for contempt after
considering his answer, because he does not deny the authenticity of
the statement as it has been published. In his answer, the respondent
does not deny having published the above quoted threat, and
intimidation as well as false and calumnious charges against this
Supreme Court. And he also alleges in his answer that "in the exercise
of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the
respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith
and with no intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable
members of this high Tribunal, who, in his opinion, erroneously
decided the Parazo case; but he has not attacked, or intended to attack
the honesty or integrity of any one.'
The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a
pending cause, respecting the same, has always been considered as
misbehavior, tending to obstruct the administration of justice, and
subjects such persons to contempt proceedings. (In re Kelly) Any
publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the upon court, the parties,
the officers of the court, the counsel, etc., with reference to the suit,
or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is contempt of
court and is punishable. The power to punish for contempt is inherent
in all court.
But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to
be published in the press, the respondent does not merely criticize or
comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which was then and still
is pending reconsideration by this Court upon petition of Angel
Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court
with the presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one
of the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the
members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members
of Justices from eleven to seven, so as to change the members of this
Court which decided the Parazo case, who according to his statement,
are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final
decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the
administration of justice. But the respondent also attacks the honesty
and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the
Justices of this Court into disrepute and degrading the administration
of justice.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last
bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grievances
or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose
their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe
that they cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into
their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member
of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity
according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in
the administration of justice.
The respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto guilty of contempt of this
Court by virtue of the above-quoted publication.
In all said statements the respondent misrepresents to the
public the cause of the charge against him for contempt of court. He
says that the cause is for criticizing the decision of this Court in said
Parazo case in defense of the freedom of the press, when in truth and
in fact he is charged with intending to interfere and influence the final
disposition of said case through intimidation and false accusations
against this Supreme Court.
In re Almacen
Facts:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s
Certificate of Title” to the Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to
what he call a tribunal “peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for
justice…”. He also expressed strong words as against the judiciary
like “justice… is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” . The petition rooted
from the case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his motion in
the trial court. His clients was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust
judgment." His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason of
jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again
dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of
this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to surrender his title is only
in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon as he regained
confidence in the justice system.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary
actions for his acts.
HELD:
YES. Indefinite suspension imposed. It has been pointed out by
the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen
himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his
accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged
injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already
caused enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this
particular case is sui generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local
jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and
references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was
imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders,
after Atty. Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume
the practice of law.
A resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate
of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with
reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain
our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the
practice of the noblest profession.
The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case
entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero, in which Atty.
Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court, after due
hearing, rendered judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty.
Almacen received a copy of the decision. Twenty days later, or on July
5, 1966, he moved for its reconsideration. He served on the adverse
counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify the latter of the time
and place of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the
plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of
service," the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve
on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration,
Atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for
reconsideration to which he attached the required registry return card.
This second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered
withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion
of Atty. Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on August 22, 1966, had
already perfected the appeal. Because the plaintiff interposed no
objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond, the trial court
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
It was at this juncture that Atty. Almacen gave vent to his
disappointment by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate
of Title," already adverted to — a pleading that is interspersed from
beginning to end with the insolent contemptuous, grossly disrespectful
and derogatory remarks hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court
as well as its individual members, a behavior that is as unprecedented
as it is unprofessional.
Cruz v Salva what was regard a grievous error and poor judgment for which we fail
to find any excuse or satisfactory explanation. His actuations in this
Facts: regard went well beyond the bounds of prudence, discretion and good
A petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary taste. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal
injunction filed by Cruz against Francisco G. H. Salva to restrain him case is being investigated by the authorities, even when it being tried
from continuing with the preliminary investigation he was conducting in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even
in connection with the killing of Manuel Monroy which took place on. encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration
A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even
Castelo, de Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. abhorrent, and the Court, in the interest of justice, is constrained and
They all appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its repetition by
found guilty. meting an appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one
Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine liable.
Constabulary questioned people and got confessions pointing to
persons other than those convicted. Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva
to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new confessions. Fiscal
conferred w/ Solicitor General and the Justice Sec decided to have the
results of investigation made available to counsel for appellants. Chief
of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and
confessions.
Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and
subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who wa simplicated as instigator and
mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz’ counsel
questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct
preliminary investigation because the case was pending appeal in the
SC. Counsel filed this present petition.
Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz because of Cruz’ oral and
personal request to allow him to appear at the investigation. SC issued
writ of preliminary injunction stopping the preliminary investigation.

Issue:
Whether or not Salva conducted the investigation property.

Ruling:
No. the members of the Court were greatly disturbed and
annoyed by such publicity and sensationalism, all of which may
properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva. In this, he committed
Magsalang v People

Facts:
Maglasang was convicted