VII-A Part 2

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

1/7

1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

PALUWAGAN NG BAYAN SAVINGS BANK v. KING

Petitioner bank sued Mercantile Financing Corporation

(MFC), and private respondents, as directors and officers

of MFC, for the recovery of money market placements

through certain promissory notes. They were charged

jointly and solidarily.

Some of the respondents (PRIVATE RESPONDENTS)

were former officers of MFC, however they were no

longer connected with MFC when the case was filed.

The summons and copies of the complaints were served

upon MFC and private respondents, only in one address,

at the 4th Floor, LTA Building, No. 118 Perea Street,

Makati, Metro Manila, which is the stated office address

of MFC in the complaint, through its Assistant Manager

Mr. Nasario S. Najomot Jr. who acknowledged receipt

and in behalf of MFC and the private respondents.

The law firm of Guillermo E. Aragones and Associates

filed a motion for extension of time to file a responsible

pleading and/or motion to dismiss. The said motion was

signed by Atty. Guillermo E. Aragones as counsel for the

defendants (for MFC and the private repondents).The

motion was granted.

Eventually, a compromise agreement was reached by the

bank and the MFC. In the compromise agreement,

signed a Compromise Agreement in behalf of MFC and

private respondents which was submitted to the court

on the basis of which a compromise judgment was

rendered; that said judgment was partially complied with

but upon default in the payment of the balance, a writ of

execution was sought from and granted by the trial

court; and that it was only then that Atty. Aragones

informed the court that he committed an oversight in

having filed the Compromise Agreement in behalf of

private respondents when it was only MFC which hired

his services.

However, on the part of the private respondents, the

Syquia Law Offices, in behalf of private respondents, fileda motion to set aside the decision on the Compromise

Agreement and the writ of execution on the ground that

there was no service of summons upon each of them as

the corporate address of the corporation was not their

address as they were no longer connected; that Atty.

Aragones had no authority to represent them in the

action and compromise agreement; that they were not

served copies of the decision of the court; that they

learned about the same only when it was being executed;

and that they did not participate as directors or officers

of MFC in the subject transaction.

The motion was denied by the RTC and CA.

ISSUE (Legal ethics issue):

WON Atty. Aragoneslapses warrants a sanction

RULING:

Yes. A copy of the decision was furnished to the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines for an appropriate

administrative investigation, report and

recommendation on Atty. Guillermo E. Aragones.

Atty. Aragones' appears to be remiss in his duties and

reckless in the performance of his responsibility as

counsel of record in said case. He represented himself to

be the counsel for the defendants including the private

respondents not only in the motions he filed but also in

the Compromise Agreement he submitted. It was only

after the writ of execution of the compromise judgmen

was being enforced that he perked up by saying that he

committed an oversight and that he was not authorized

by the private respondents to represent them as counse

much less in the Compromise Agreement. Cando

towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the

practicing lawyer. To say one thing today and another

tomorrow is a transgression of this imperative. Counse

should be made to account before his peers.

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

2/7


BEREGUER v. CARRANZA

A complaint against respondent Pedro B. Carranza was

filed, for deception practiced on the Court of First

Instance of Sorsogon, in that he was aware of the falsity

of an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer executed by

the mother of his client to the effect that her own motherleft no legitimate ascendants or descendants or any

other heirs except herself, when, as a matter of fact, the

deceased was survived by four other daughters and one

son, father of the complainant, he introduced the same

in evidence.

Atty Caranza in his defense contended that his failure to

notice the existence of an incorrect statement in the said

affidavit was a mere oversight. It was not willful, for he

has not consented to the doing of the falsity therein

made, since the same was prepared by petitioner's

lawyer in Pasay City; nor did he willingly do falsehood in

the hearing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Carranza should be held

responsible of the said falsehood committed in court.

RULING:

Respondent Pedro B. Carranza was reprimanded and

warned that a repetition of an offense of this characterwould be much more severely dealt with. The reprimand

was publicly administered.

His failure to exercise greater care did result in the

"confusion and prolongation of the cadastral suit." Under

the circumstances, it would be to err on, the side of

undue leniency if he would be held blameless. He had

incurred liability. His fidelity to his oath as attorney was

less than entire.

Every member of the bar must be on his guard, lestthrough oversight or inadvertence, the way he conducts

his case or the evidence he presents could conceivably

result in a failure of justice. Time and time again, lawyers

have been admonished to remember that they are

officers of the court, and that while they owe their clients

the duty of complete fidelity and the utmost diligence,

they are likewise held to strict accountability insofar as

candor and honesty towards the court is concerned.

Even if there be no intent to deceive, therefore, a lawye

whose conduct, as in this case, betrays inattention or

carelessness should not be allowed to free himself from

a charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere

plea that his conduct was not wilful and that he has not

consented to the doing of the falsity.

A lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmostseriousness; it must not be taken lightly. Every lawye

must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure

of justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as wel

as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the

presentation of evidence, whether oral or documentary

is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case

even without any intent on the part of a member of the

bar to mislead the court, such deplorable event did

occur, he must not be allowed to escape the

responsibility that justly attaches to a conduct far from

impeccable.

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

3/7

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

4/7


COMELEC v. NOYNAY

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to fi le

an information for violation of Section 261(i) of the

Omnibus Election Code against private respondents

Diosdada Amor, a public school principal, and Esbel Chua

and Ruben Magluyoan, both public school teachers, for

having engaged in partisan political activities. TheCOMELEC authorized its Regional Director in Region VIII

to handle the prosecution of the cases.

Judge Tomas B. Noynay, as presiding judge of RTC Branch

23, motu proprioordered the records of the cases to be

withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law Department

to file the cases with the appropriate Municipal Trial

Court on the ground that pursuant to Section 32 of B.P.

Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, the Regional Trial

Court has no jurisdiction over the cases since the

maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases does

not exceed six years of imprisonment.

In response, the petitioners counsel, Atty. Jose P.

Balbuena, Director IV of petitioners Law Department,

filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the

RTC has jurisdiction over the case. In his argument, Atty.

Balbuena cited and misquoted certain authorities in

order to bolster his contention.

ISSUE:

(1) WON RTC Judge Noynay correctly construed theprinciples/rules of to Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129

as amended by R.A. No. 7691. If not, does it

warrant a sanction?

(2) WON Atty. Balbuenas act of misquotingauthorities warrants a sanction

RULING:

(1) RTC Judge erred in construing the law. It isobvious that respondent judge did not read at all

the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg.129, as amended. It is thus an opportune time,

as any, to remind him, as well as other judges, of

his duty to be studious of the principles of law,to

administer his office with due regard to the

integrity of the system of the law itself,[to be

faithful to the law, and to maintain professional

competence.

Respondent Judge is DIRECTED to try and decide

said cases with purposeful dispatch and, further

ADMONISHED to faithfully comply with Canons 4

and 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Rule

3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

(2) Counsel for petitioner, Atty. Jose P. BalbuenaDirector IV of petitioners Law Department, musalso be admonished for his utter carelessness in

his reference to the cited case against a certain

judge.

If Atty. Balbuena was diligent enough, he would

have known that the correct name of the

complainant in the case cited is neitherAlberto

Naldeza as indicated in the motion fo

reconsideration nor Alberto alone as stated in

the petition, but ALBERTO NALDOZA.

Moreover, the case was not reported in volume

245 of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated

(SCRA) as falsely represented in the paragraph

16 of the petition, but in volume 254 of the SCRA

Worse, in both the motion for reconsideration

and the petition, Atty. Balbuena deliberately

made it appear that the quoted portions were

the Courts findings or rulings, or, put a little

differently, the Courts own words. The truth is

the quoted portion is just a part of the

memorandum of the Court Administratoquoted in the decision.

Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility[14] mandates that a

lawyer shall not knowingly misquote o

misrepresent the text of a decision or authority

Atty. Jose P. Balbuena is ADMONISHED to be

more careful in the discharge of his duty to the

court as a lawyer under the Code of Professiona

Responsibility.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/132365.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/132365.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/132365.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/132365.htm#_edn14

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

5/7


INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees

Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers &

Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building

Employees Association-NATU, while still members of the

Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separatecollective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life

Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group.

Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies;

negotiations were conducted on the Unions proposals,

but these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of

union shop, as a result of which the Unions filed on

January 27, 1958 a notice of strike for deadlock on

collective bargaining. The issue was dropped

subsequently (in short, nagkasundo). But, the parties

negotiated on the labor demands but with no

satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of

salary increases.

As legal actions were taken by both parties, a decision

was rendered by Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez of the

Court of Industrial Relations. In his decision, it is plain to

the naked eye that the 60 un-underscored words of the

paragraph quoted by the respondent Judge do not

appear in the pertinent paragraph of this Court's decision

in L-20179-81.

Moreover, the first underscored sentence in the quotedparagraph starts with "For it is settled ..." whereas it

reads, "For it must be remembered ...," in this Court's

decision. Finally, the second and last underlined

sentence in the quoted paragraph of the respondent

Judge's decision, appears not in the same paragraph of

this Court's decision where the other sentence is, but in

the immediately succeeding paragraph.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent also

quoted the same on pages 90-91 of the respondents'

brief.

ISSUE:

WON the presiding judge and the respondent counsels

acts warrant a contempt.

RULING:

No. However, both the presiding judge and the

respondent counsel were admosnished.

This apparent error, however, does not seem to warran

an indictment for contempt against the respondent

Judge and the respondents' counsels. The misquotation

is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate

attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to misleadWe fully realize how saddled with many pending cases

are the courts of the land, and it is not difficult to imagine

that because of the pressure of their varied and

multifarious work, clerical errors may escape thei

notice. Upon the other hand, the respondents' counsel

have theprima facie right to rely on the quotation as it

appears in the respondent Judge's decision, to copy i

verbatim, and to incorporate it in their brief.

Be that as it may, we must articulate our firm view tha

in citing this Court's decisions and rulings, it is the

bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to

reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and

punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark.Indeed, there

is a salient and salutary reason why they should do this

Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do al

other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants, take thei

bearings. This is because the decisions referred to in

article 8 of the Civil Code which reads, "Judicial decision

applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shal

form a part of the legal system of the Philippines," are

only those enunciated by this Court of last resort. We

said in no uncertain terms in Miranda, et al. vs. Imperial,et al. (77 Phil. 1066) that "[O]nly the decisions of this

Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in

this jurisdiction." Thus, ever present is the danger that i

not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and

rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct

meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and

the public who may thereby be misled. But if inferio

courts and members of the bar meticulously discharge

their duty to check and recheck their citations o

authorities culled not only from this Court's decisions but

from other sources and make certain that they areverbatim reproductions down to the last word and

punctuation mark, appellate courts will be precluded

from acting on misinformation, as well as be saved

precious time in finding out whether the citations are

correct.

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

6/7


MACIAS v. UY KIM

Petitioner-appellant Manuel Y. Macias filed on

December 2, 1969 a petition for review

by certiorari against respondents Uy Kim, Andres Co,

Nemesio Co, Nicasio Co, Manuel Sosantong, Reliable

Realty Corporation, and Branch X of the Manila Court of

First Instance, alleging that he filed on May 5, 1969 acomplaint dated April 30, 1969 for the annulment of a

deed of sale, reivindicacion and damages against

respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 76412 and

assigned to Branch X of the Manila Court of First Instance

presided over by Honorable Jose L. Moya.

This case was filed despite the fact that an order

regarding the same case was by Judge Barcelona

presiding over Branch VIII of the same court.

It is a general principle that the branch of the court of

first instance that first acquired jurisdiction over the case

retains such jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other

branches of the same court of first instance or judicial

district and all other coordinate courts.

ISSUE:

WON the act of the petitioner-appellant, in filing

identical suits, through his counsel warrants a sanction

RULING:

The Court cannot ignore the proclivity or tendency of

appellant herein to file several actions covering the same

subject matter or seeking substantially identical relief,

which is unduly burdening the courts. Coming from a

neophyte, who is still unsure of himself in the practice of

the law, the same may be regarded with some

understanding. But considering appellant's ability and

long experience at the bar, his filing identical suits for the

same remedy is reprehensible and should merit rebuke.

GARCIA v. FRANCISCO

On March 9, 1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her husband

Godofredo, the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa and

Magdalena Baetiong leashed 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. Leeclaimed 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

Lee's counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced

various suits before different courts to thwart Garcia's

right to regain her property and that all these

proceedings were decided against Lee. The proceeding

stemmed from the said lease contract and involved the

same issues and parties, thus violating the proscription

against forum-shopping.

Respondent, in his comment, says that he inserted in

defense of his client's right only such remedies as were

authorized by law.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Francisco should be sanctioned for forum

shopping

RULING:

Yes. He is SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR from the practice o

law and from the enjoyment of all the rights and

privileges appurtenant to membership in the Philippine

bar.

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 respondent's client in obviously withou

merit. The respondent was aware of this fact when he

wilfully resorted to continuously seek relief that wasconsistently denied, as he should have expected. He

thereby added to the already clogged dockets of the

courts and wasted their valuable time. He also caused

much inconvenience and expense to the complainant

who was obliged to defend herself against his every

move.

By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts fo

the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly

rebuffed, he was disdaining the obligation of the lawye

8/13/2019 VII-A Part 2

7/7


to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear

to him to be just and such defense 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 trust reposed in him by

law as an officer of the Court.

Atty. Crisanto l. Francisco took his oath as a lawyer on

March 2, 1956. Considering his age and experience in the

practice of the laws, he should have known better than

to trifle with it and to use it as an instrument for

harassment of the complainant and the misuse of judicial

processes. For this serious transgression of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, he deserves to be

sanctioned, not only as punishment for his misconduct

but also as a warning to other lawyers who may be

influenced by his example.

ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP v. CA

This is the second time petitioner Eternal Gardens

Memorial Park Corporation has come to this Court

assailing the execution of the judgment dated August 24

1989, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan

City in Civil Case No. C-9297. Apparently, hope spring

eternal for petitioner, considering that the issues raisedin this second petition for review are but mere

reiterations of previously settled issues which have

already attained finality. We now write finis to this

controversy which has dragged on for seventeen (17

years.

The case started on May 18, 1981 when private

respondent-spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin

filed a complaint against Central Dyeing & Finishing

Corporation (Central Dyeing for brevity) for quieting o

title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate

of Title (TCT No. 205942) issued in the name of said

corporation, docketed as Civil Case No. C-9297, before

the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City.

The case was decided in favor of the Seelin spouses

even by the CA. The petitioner had been persistent in

filing a motion for reconsideration, up to the level of the

Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

WON the act of the petitioner through counsel is correc

by law

RULING:

NO. This case has again delayed the execution of a

final judgment for seventeen (17) years to the prejudice of the

private respondents. In the meantime that petitioner has

thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot has long

been going on, so that by the time this case is finally

terminated, the whole lot shall have already been filled with

tombstones, leaving nothing for private respondents, the rea

owners of the property. This is a mockery of justice.

"As officers of the court, lawyers have a

responsibility to assist in the proper administration ojustice. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointles

petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary

especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A

judicious study of the facts and the law should advise

them when a case such as this, should not be permitted

to be filed to merely clutter the already congested

judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law o

their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack

of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts."

VII-A Part 2

Documents

Transcript of VII-A Part 2