8.) Republic vs. Desierto (GR 131966, Aug 31, 2005)
Fcts! Desierto and Cojuangco et.al., are members of the Boards of Directors of United Coconut Planter Bank and United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. The are charged !ith taking undue ad"antage of their #ublic office and close relationshi# !ith Dictator Marcos in unla!full misa##ro#riating huge amounts of coconut le" funds in connection !ith the ac$uisition of %& oil mills in order to establish a mono#ol, "iolating '( )*%+ (nti-raft / Corru#t Practices (ct0. The PC then transmitted the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for a##ro#riate action, OMB-*-+*-12%%. Thereafter, the raft In"estigation Officer II, (manete, issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of said case, finding no sufficient e"idence to belie"e that "iolation of (nti-raft 3a! !as committed.
'.P. #etition for certiorari to 4u# Court. 'es#ondents 'egala and Conce#cion contend, inter alia, that #etitioner has no cause of action against them because their acts !ere #erformed in the course of their duties as counsels. Both #arties filed a motion for reconsideration.
Issues5 6hether or not res#ondents 'egala and Conce#cion should be e7cluded as defendants to the case8 9eld5 :es, res#ondents 'egala and Conce#cion in this case !ere being charged for illegal acts and thue the !ere constituted as Members of the Board Directors of U;ICOM and UCPB in the course of their duties as counsel, and the should be e7cluded as defendants to the case.
1".) R#$%&A $. 'AR* +'. #R- #F AA/' (GR &o. 91133, $rc 22, 1993) FA-'! 'omina M. 4uare< !as charged t!ice in a crime for a "iolation of B.P. 11 or the (ntiBouncing Check 3a!. 4uare< #leaded =not guilt> to all informations against her and #osted bail in all the cases and !as granted a #ro"isional libert. 4he did not a##ear in court des#ite of the notices sent to her. 9er counsel de parte, (tt. ?icente 4an 3uis a##eared in her behalf from the time of the #rosecution@s #resentation of its e"idence at the time of the defense@ #resentation of e"idence. 9earing !as #ost#oned because of the absence of the #ri"ate #rosecutor and the continuation of the hearing !as reset. (tt. Buen Aamar entered a s#ecial a##earance for (tt. ?icente 4an 3uis !ithout the Consent of 4uare<. (tt. 4an 3uis did not a##ear in court as he had left for the U4( !ithout informing 4uare< or !ithdra!ing his a##earance. 'TC issued an order forfeiting in fa"our of the go"ernment the bonds #osted b 4uare< for her #ro"isional libert in "ie! of the failure of her bondsmen to #roduce her at the scheduled hearings of the cases against her. 'TC issued a notice setting the #romulgation of the decision. It !as found out 4uare< got married and !as out of the countr for almost 1 ears. 'TC again issued a notice setting the #romulgation of its decision. Co#ies !ere sent to 4uare< and her counsel. 4uare< !as re#resented b (tt. Aamar at the reading of the sentence. 4uare< !as arrested and detained. 4uare< re#resented b a ne! counsel de parte filed ) motions !hich 'TC denied. 4uare< a##ealed to the Court of (##eals onl to affirm 'TC@s decision. 4uare< filed a #etition for certiorari to the 4u#reme Court.
%''! 6hether or not 4uare< !as denied her da in Court8
/D!
:es, (tt. 4an 3uis, counsel de parte of 4uare< failed to discharge his duties as counsel. 4uare<@ counsel !as negligent in abandoning the conduct of the case !ithout formall !ithdra!ing or at least informing her that he !ould be #ermanentl staing in the U4( so that 4uare< could a##oint another counsel. Canon %, Code of Professional 'es#onsibilit states that =( la!er o!es absolute fidelit to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence re#osed in him. (tt. 4an 3uis !as un$uestionabl negligent in the #erformance of his duties to his client 4uare<. 9is negligence consisted in failure to attend the hearings of the case, failure to ad"ise his client that he !as going to sta abroad and failure to !ithdra! #ro#erl as counsel for 4uare<. (s a general rule, a client is bound b his counsel@s conduct, negligence and mistakes in handling the case during trial, but as an e7ce#tion, a ne! trial ma be granted !here the incom#etenc of counsel is so great that the accused is #rejudiced and #re"ented from fairl #resenting his defense.
13.) +%-#R%&A A-%'-A +'. A--. 'RG%# . R&A (A &o. 6963, Februr4 9, 2006) FA-'! ?ictorina Bautista filed a com#laint !ith #raer for sus#ension or disbarment at the Commission on Bar Disci#line of the IBP against (tt. 4ergio . Bernabe. Bautista alleged that (tt. Bernabe #re#ared and notari
%''! 6hether or not (tt. Bernabe committed error in the joint affida"it e7ecuted8
/D! :es, Basilia !as alread dead !hen the joint affida"it !as #re#ared. (tt. Bernabe@s alleged lack of kno!ledge of Basilia@s death does not e7cuse him. It !as his dut to re$uire the #ersonal a##earance of the affiant before affi7ing his notarial seal and signature on the instrument. (tt. Bernabe@s act of notari
12.) Re! A&$#' #$/A%&- AGA%&'- DG D$&D# -. AA, R-, A/##A& %-, RA& 123 (A$ &o. R-70"71891, ul4 28, 2005) FA-'! The Office of the Court (dministrator recei"ed an anonmous letter from the =Concerned citi re#orting the alleged =#ractices> of udge dmundo T. (cuEa, Br.1) 'TC Caloocan Cit. In the letter, it !as stated that the udge (cuEa conducted trials, signed orders and e"en sentenced accused !hile on official lea"e. (lso in the letter, it !as listed the udge@s =dialogues> and =fa"ourite e7#ressions> like #utris, #utang ina, anak ng #ating, #ogi, beaut, etc. It also re#orts that the udge =s#ends much of his energ talking> and lo"es to embarrass #eo#le, not caring !hether
he s#eaks in o#en court, as long he has an audience, and he also changes his mind so man times and lo"es to glorif himself. The udge a"erred that the !riters of the letter has the #ur#ose to harass him. 9e also alleged that he !as issued an (uthorit to Tra"el a##ro"ed and signed b the (cting Court (dministrator allo!ing him to tra"el abroad but he did not do so as a##eared in their logbook and conducted trials and issued order and took #ride not to go on lea"e to dis#ense justice. 9e also admitted that he did use some of his fa"ourite e7#ressions but not often and certainl not in o#en court. The OC( made e"aluations and refer the administrati"e matter to C( ustice AeEarosa for in"estigation, re#ort and recommendation.
%''! 6hether or not udge (cuEa is guilt of the com#laints stated against him8
/D! :es, but udge (cuEa !as onl re#rimanded, his act does not constitute such a gross ignorance of the rules that !ill !arrant an administrati"e liabilit. Canon F of the ;e! Code of udicial Conduct for the Phili##ine udiciar states that =Pro#riet and the a##earance of #ro#riet are essential to the #erformance of all the acti"ities of a judge. In 4ection %, ( judge should a"oid im#ro#riet and the a##earance of im#ro#riet in all acti"ities. udge (cuEa should bear in mind that a##ro"ed lea"es are filed through official documents, and his act ma obliterate the "alidit of the issuances he made !hile on official lea"e !hen his orders, decisions and other #romulgations reflect a date !hen he is alread su##osed to be on lea"e. 4ection 1 of the ;e! Code of udicial Conduct also #ro"ides us that =(s a subject of constant #ublic scrutin, judges must acce#t #ersonal restrictions that might be "ie!ed as burdensome b the ordinar citi
11.) '#'' %//%A$ A&D -R'%-A ADR +'. A--. $$A&/ A(Ac &o. "809, $4 3, 2006) FA-'! Originall, there !as a criminal case in !hich 4#ouses, 6illiam and Teresita (decer com#lainants0 !ere charges !ith committing a crime Other Deceits0 #unichable under the 'e"ised Penal Code. (tt. mmanuel (kut !as their legal counsel in the criminal case. The s#ouses (decer accuses (tt. (kul for being negligent. Girst, des#ite (tt. (kut@s recei#t of a co# of the Decision and the conse$uent running of the fifteen %H0-da #eriod to file a #etition for #robation, res#ondent !ent out of to!n !ithout contacting com#lainants to gi"e them #ro#er legal ad"ice. Gurthermore, (tt. (kut@s admission that com#lainants !ere %J under the im#ression that the first had to #a off their ci"il liabilities #rior to filing a #etition for #robation and 1J una!are that the had onl fifteen %H0 das from their counsel@s recei#t of a co# of the decision to file their #etition, #ro"es that (tt. (kut failed to gi"e com#lainants timel legal ad"ice. (tt. (kut e7#lained that he !as out of his office most of the time becauseK he and his !ife !ere al!as out of to!n looking for faith healers to cure the malignant brain tumor of his !ife, !ho e"entuall succumbed to the cancer. (llegedl, after attending the Lim#ortantL hearings, he immediatel !ent out of to!n seeking faith healers. 4#ouses (decer !ere then im#risoned and !hile ser"ing sentence filed a administrati"e case !ith #raer of disbarment and reimburse them of e7#enses !ith interest and damage.
%''! 6hether or not (tt. (kut is guilt of negligence8
/D! :es, (tt. (kut failed to e7ercise the #ro#er diligence in dealing !ith the case of his clients. Canon %2 of the Code of Professional 'es#onsibilit states that =( la!er shall ser"e his client !ith com#etence and diligence. 'ule %2.*1 ( la!er shall not handle an legal matter !ithout ade$uate #re#aration. 'ule %2.*) ( la!er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection there!ith shall render him liable. (tt.(kut e7#lained that he !as in to!n to attend some =im#ortant hearings> but !as out of to!n most of the time. 9e also attem#ted to decei"e the court b stating !ithout $ualification that he !as out of to!n, and uttered !ords that some of his cases are more im#ortant and ga"e more immediate attention among others. "er case a la!er acce#ts deser"es full attention, skill, and com#etence, regardless of his im#ression that one case or hearing is more im#ortant than the other.
(tt. (kut !as gi"en a co# of the decision !hile he !as in to!n. 9e can addressed his client@s need during that time, he is #rimaril res#onsible for filing the "ital #leading that !ould ha"e made #ossible for his clients to a"ail of #robation, such act of omission of (tt. (kut is a cul#able act of negligence for !hich he must be held liable.
10.) '#'' A&-#&%# A&D R$A '#R%A +'. A--. R&A/D# . R' (A &o. "6:6, $4 ", 2006) FA-'! 4#ouses 4oriano engaged the ser"ices of (tt. 'enaldo 'ees for t!o ci"il cases in !hich (tt. 'ees !ill diligentl attend to it and !ill inform the status of the case. During the #endenc of the second case, 4#ouses 4oriano, in$uired the status of their first case to (tt. 'ees and informed them that it !as still #ending and ongoing. The s#ouses later learned that their first case !as dismissed for failure of their counsel to file a #re-trial brief. ( motion for reconsideration !as filed but then denied. (s to the second case, it !as like!ise found out that it !as dismissed for failure to #rosecute. ( motion for reconsideration !as filed and !as considered. 4#ouses 4oriano filed a com#laint of disbarment against (tt. 'ees to the 4u#reme Court. The 4u#reme Court then referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Phili##ines for in"estigation.
%''! 6hether or not (tt. 'ees is guilt of negligence8
/D! :es, (tt. 'ees failed to file the #re-trial brief is a ground for dismissal of the case and it constitutes ine7cusable negligence. 9e !as not able to #rotect his client@s interest through his o!n fault. Canon %2, 'ule %2.*) of the Code of Professional 'es#onsibilit #ro"ides that a la!er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection there!ith shall render him liable. B reason of (tt. 'ees@ negligence, the s#ouses suffered actual loss. 9e should ha"e gi"en ade$uate attention, care and time to his cases. On the second case, e"en though reconsidered, (tt. 'ees failed to demonstrate the re$uired diligence in handling the case of com#lainants. Canon %2, 'ule %2.*F #ro"ides
that ( la!er shall kee# the client informed of the status of his case and shall res#ond !ithin a reasonable time to the client@s re$uest for information. (tt. 'ees lacked candor in dealing !ith his clients as he omitted to a##rise the s#ouses of the status of the t!o cases and e"en assured the s#ouses that he !as diligentl attending to the t!o cases.
09.) #' -#F%/# A&D $A. AG&' $RAD# +'. 'R%- A& #R#RA-%#& (GR &o. 160""5, Februr4 16, 2006) FA-'! Teofilo and (gnes Mercado filed t!o #etitions to the 4u#reme Court in !hich the are denied and also there motion for consideration. Mercado !rote unfounded, malicious and disres#ectful !ords and accusations against Chief ustice Da"ide, r. !hich then re$uired Mercado@s la!er, (tt. ?illanue"a, to comment on the letter and sho! cause !h he should not be held in contem#t of court. Mercado, together !ith his ne! counsel, manifested that he onl stated therein !hat (tt. ?illanue"a told him that his #etition !as denied for the second time “because of the tremendous pressure from the Chief Justice” and that the ponente of the case !as “a very very good, close and long time friend of his.” (tt. ?illanue"a also submitted a comment dening Mercado@s entire allegation. The 4u#reme Court Third Di"ision ordered both Mercado and (tt. ?illanue"a to a##ear to elucidate their res#ecti"e #ositions. The ) rd Di"ision designated Court of (##eals ustice 'enato Dacudao as Commissioner to recei"e e"idence on the factual issues in"ol"ed.
%''! 6hether or not (tt. ?illanue"a@s act a ground for him to be in contem#t of court8
/D! :es, Mercado@s addressing such letter to Chief ustice Da"ide is a #erfect illustration of bad faith and malice tending directl to degrade the administration of justice. It transgresses the #ermissible bounds of fair comment and criticisms bringing into re#ute, not onl the authorit and integrit of the Chief ustice Da"ide and the ponente, but also of the entire udiciar. It !as found out that (tt. ?illanue"a ga"e such information to Mercado. ;ot onl that, (tt. ?illanue"a also re"ealed the name of the ponente; the he and the ponente ha"e kno!n each other. 'ule %H.*& of Canon %H of the Code of Professional 'es#onsibilit states that =( la!er shall not state or im#l that he is able to influence an #ublic official, tribunal or legislati"e bod.> Gurther, 'ule %H.* #ro"ides that, =( la!er must im#ress u#on his client com#liance !ith the la!s and #rinci#les of fairness.> (tt. ?illanue"a informed Mercado that he !as “a very very good, close and long time friend.” of the ponente. 9e im#ressed Mercado that he can obtain a fa"ourable dis#osition of his case. 9o!e"er !hen his #etition !as dismissed t!ice, Mercado@s e7#ectation crumbled and #rom#ted him to make such malicious statements to the Chief ustice and the #onente. 3a!ers are admonished from making bold assurances to clients. (tt. ?illanue"a@s statements led Mercado, not onl to sus#ect but also to belie"e, that the entire Court, together !ith Chief ustice Da"ide and the #onente, could be #ressured or influenced. The conduct of (tt.?illanue"a degraded the integrit and dignit of the Court.