ETHICS (J. Bersamin)
DE LEON VS. PEDRENA 708 SCRA 13, 22 October 2013 Administrative Matter; Sexual Harrasment Facts: Petitioner Jocelyn De Leon, filed a disbarment case or suspension from the practice of law against the respondent Atty. Pedrena. The petitioner alleged that the respondent is her counsel for her case against against his husband. When the respondent asked the petitioner to ride with him, the petitioner acceded to his request. Inside the car, the respondent rubbed her leg with his hand, tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand, grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it in his cotch area and pressed his finger against her private part. Held: The petitioner was able to prove her case against the respondent. During the clarificatory hearing, she was straightforward and spontaneous in answering questions propounded on her. The court ruled that the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership to the legal profession. Members of the bar are clearly duty bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of the bar. In the instant case, immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal cat, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. ---------------SESBRENO VS. CA 720 SCRA 57, 26 March 2014 Judges Facts: Sesbreno’s dwelling is included in those houses subject to the routine inspection conducted by the violation of contract inspectors (VOC). Without his permission, he contends that the VOC went to his house by threatening, forcing and coercing his maids. The petitioner alleged that the VOC committed a violation of search and seizures. The CA judge inhibits himself from participating in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by Sesbreno.
Held: The petioner’s contention is bereft of merit. As to the inhibition of a judge to his case, although the trial judge had issued an order for his voluntary inhibition, he still rendered the judgement in the end in compliance with the instruction of the executive judge, whose administrative administrative authority in the matter of the inhibition inhibition should be respected. The motion for the inhibition was grounded on suspicion of her bias and prejudice, but suspicion of bias and prejudice were not enough grounds for inhibition. ---------------HENRY SAMONTE VS. ABELLANA 727 SCRA 80, 23 June 2014 Administrative Case re: Falsification of Documents Facts: Samonte (Petitioner) brought his administrative complaint complaint against the respondent Atty. Abellana who had represented him in his case. The petitioner alleged that the respondent committed serious acts of professional misconduct such as falsification of documents, dereliction dereliction of duty, gross negligence and tardiness, and dishonesty. The IBP recommended the disbarment of the petitioner since she has shown a facility for utilizing false and deceitful practices as a means to cover up her delay and lack of diligence in pursuing his client. Held: In his dealings with his clients and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and demanding are the professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer’s oath that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the Law profession. ---------------HECK VS. GAMOTIN 719 SCRA 339, 18 March 2014 Disbarment Facts: Petitioner Heck, foreigner, filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent for offending him regarding with his case. The respondent is the City Prosecutor who entertained the case of the petitioner against against another city prosecutor for unjust vexation. However, the petitioner claimed that respondent is deemed biased in favor of his opponent’s counsel. Such acts like having a private meeting with the opponent’s counsel and for shouting him hi m in front of his family members.
Held: The court ruled that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution only for the most imperative reasons and in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and the member of the bar. In this case, the petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to warrant the disbarment of the respondent. ---------------RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT ON THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT AND FOR ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY AT USURIOUS RATES OF INTEREST OF MS. DOLORES T. LOPEZ, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, AND MR. FERNANDO MONTALVO, SC SUPERVISING JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, CHECKS DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE. 737 SCRA 176, 30 September 2014 Facts: A letter-complaint was sent by a concerned employee who chose to remain anonymous to Complaints and Investigation Division of the Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court assailing the profitable lending-money with usurious interest scheme engaged by respondents. It stated that the respondents had been involved in the money-lending activities targeting the low-salaried employees of the Court, that such money-lending had been going on with the help of the personnel of the Checks Disbursement Division of FMBO by enticing employees of the Court to pledge forthcoming benefits at a discounted rate and ATM cards were surrendered by the borrowers to the respondents respondents as as collateral for for the individual borrowing. borrowing. Ruling: Section 1 of its Article XI Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Administrative Circular no. 5 provides prohibition for the employees and officials of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession, even outside their office hours. The prohibition has been at ensuring that full-time officers and employees of the courts render full-time service, for only thereby could any undue delays in the administration of justice and in the disposition of court cases be avoided. The nature of the work of court employees and officials demanded their highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, but they would not ably meet the demand except by devoting in their undivided time to the government service. This explains why court employees have been enjoined to strictly observe official time and to devote every second or moment of such time to serving the public. Considering that the official and personal conduct and deportment of all the people who work for the
Judiciary Judiciary mirrored the image of the Court itself, they should strive to comport themselves with propriety and decorum at all times, and to be above suspicion of any misdeed and misconduct. Only thereby would they earn and keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the Judiciary. As a public servant, therefore, respondent Lopez knew only too well that she was expected at all times to exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity. ---------------SEARES, JR. VS. GONZALES-ALZATE 685 SCRA 397, 14 November 2012 Conflict of Interest Facts: Atty. Saniata Gonzales-Alzate was charged with incompetence and professional negligence, and a violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. Complainant Seares, Jr. is her former client . Seares solicited the legal services of Atty. Alzate for the 2007 election protest. Turqueza, represented by Atty. Alzate filed an administrative administrative complaint against Seares, Jr. Held: The Court ruled that Atty. Alzate’s legal representation of Turqueza neither resulted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his former attorney. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits an attorney from representing a party in a controversy that is directly or indirectly related to the subject matter of a previous litigation involving another client. Representing Representing conflicting interests would only occur where the attorney’s new engagement would require her to use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous professional professional relation. The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject matter of the present engagement was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the attorney. To constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally use against the former client the confidential information acquired by her during the previous employment. ---------------MORTEL VS. KERR 685 SCRA 1, 12 November 2012 Counsel’s negligence Facts: Respondent Kerr instituted a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against Mortel, who duly filed an answer through Atty. Mas. The pre-trial was re-set four times, and on the fifth setting Mortel and Atty. Mas were not around when the case was
called, hence the RTC declared Mortel in default. Atty. Tumulak filed a notice of appearance in behalf of Mortel, but RTC did not act on the notice. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Kerr. Thereafter, Mortel, through Atty. Lacambra filed a motion for new trial and Atty. Atty. Mas filed his withdrawal of appearance. RTC denied Mortel’s motion for new trial, noting that Atty. Mas’ withdrawal as counsel of Mortel had been approved by the RTC on March 26, 2001. Considering that the records of the case showed that Atty. Mas had received the decision, the motion for new trial had been filed out of time. The RTC granted the withdrawal of Atty. Lacambra and Atty. Mas as counsels for Mortel, and finally recognized Atty. Tumulak as the only counsel. Atty. Tumulak filed in the CA a petition for review on certiorari but the CA dismissed the petition. Atty. Tumulak sought for reconsideration but the CA denied the motion for reconsideration. Instead of appealing via petition for review on certiorari in the SC, Atty. Tumulak filed in the CA an urgent motion for extension of time to appeal to the SC. Ruling: The Court ruled that Mortel was not bound by counsel’s negligence. A client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case. To allow a client to disown his counsel’s counsel’s conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. But the rule admits of exceptions, the Court held the client not concluded by the negligence, incompetence or mistake of the counsel. When the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the result is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in Court, the client deserves another chance to present his case; hence the litigation may be reopened for that purpose. ---------------MATURAN VS. GUTIERREZ-TORRES A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1606-MTJ, 19 September 2012 Period to resolve or decide a case Facts: Complainant Atty. Maturan, the counsel for the private complainant in criminal case filed a sworn complaint against Judge Gutierrez-Torres charging her with unjustifiably delaying the rendition of the decision in his client’s criminal case. Atty. Muturan averred that the criminal case had remained pending and unresolved despite its having been submitted for decision since June 2002. Atty. Maturan stated that Judge Torres’ failure to render the judgment within 90-day 90 -day period from submission of the case violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Constitution. Constitution.
Ruling: Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and judges to be efficient and speedy in the disposition of the cases or matters pending in their courts. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to "devote their professional professional activity to judicial duties, which include the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions and to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.” These judicial canons directly demand efficiency from the judges in obvious recognition of the right of the public to the speedy disposition of their cases. In such context, the saying justice delayed is justice denied becomes a true encapsulation of the felt need for efficiency and promptness among judges. All judges should be mindful of the duty to decide promptly, knowing knowing that the public’s faith and confidence in the Judiciary are no less at stake if they should ignore such duty. ---------------HABAWEL VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS G.R. No. 174759, 7 September 2011 Respect due to the courts Facts: The petitioners were the counsel of Surfield Development Corporation (Surfield), (Surfield), sought reconsideration in behalf of Surfield, insisting that “it is gross ignorance of the law for [the Court of Tax Appeals] to have held that it has no jurisdiction over [their] petition; the grossness of [the Court of Tax Appeals’] ignorance of the law is matched only by the unequivocal expression of this [the Court of Tax Appeals’] jurisdiction Appeals’] jurisdiction over the instant case and this Court lacked the understanding and respect for the doctrine of stare decisis.” decisis. ” The Court of Tax Appeals finds the statements of petitioner’s counsel as derogatory, offensive and disrespectful. disrespectful. Held: Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and to insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Professional Responsibility Responsibility specifically specifically enjoins all attorneys thus: A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. The test for criticizing a judge’s decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. An
imputation in a pleading of gross ignorance against a court or its judge, especially in the absence of any evidence, is a serious allegation, and constitutes direct contempt of court. Every attorney must use only fair and temperate language in arguing a worthy position on the law, and must eschew harsh and intemperate intemperate language that has no place in the educated ranks of the Legal Profession. ---------------DECENA VS. MALANYAON A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217, 8 April 2013 Code of Judicial Ethics; Prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients Facts: The complainants have lodged an administrative complaint for conduct unbecoming a judge against Hon. Nilo A. Malanyaon, the complainants averred that complainant Rey C. Decena had brought an administrative case against Judge Malanyaon’s wife, Dr. Amelita C. Malanyaon; that during the hearing of the administrative case, Judge Malanyaon sat beside his daughter, Atty. Ma. Kristina C. Malanyaon, the counsel of Dr. Amelita in the case. During the early stage of the hearing when the hearing officer, Atty. Dennis Masinas Nieves, brought up the matter regarding Dr. Malanyaon’s manifestation or motion (to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction), jurisdiction), Judge Malanyaon Malanyaon coached her her daughter in making making manifestations/motions manifestations/motions before the hearing officer, by scribbling on some piece of paper and giving the same to the former, thus prompting her daughter to rise from her seat and/or ask permission from the officer to speak, and then make some manifestations manifestations while reading or glancing on the paper given by Judge Malanyaon. And he insisted that he was merely "assisting" her daughter, who "just passed the bar. Ruling: The Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges like Judge Malanyaon from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. The New Code of Judicial Conduct reiterates the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a public official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. As we have very recently explained, a judge’s official life li fe cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Being a subject of constant
public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion. ---------------CAMPUGAN VS. TOLENTINO 752 SCRA 254, 11 March 2015 Disbarment Facts: Complainants Jessie T. Campugan and Robert C. Torres seek the disbarment of respondents Atty. Federico S. Tolentino, Jr., Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., Atty. Renato G. Cunanan, Atty. Elbert T. Quilala and Atty. Constante P. Caluya, Jr. for allegedly falsifying a court order that became the basis for the cancellation of their annotation of the notice of adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens in the Registry of Deeds in Quezon City. Held: A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Profession. Lawyers are similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. ----------------
RAMISCAL VS. ORRO 784 SCRA 421, 23 February 2016 Fidelity to the cause of clients Facts: Complainants engaged in the legal services of respondent Atty. Orro to handle a case in which they were defendants seeking the declaration of nullity of title to a parcel of land in Isabela. Respondent received P10, 000 acceptance fee from them and handled the trial of their case until RTC decided in their favor. Plaintiff’s appeals to the CA to which the respondent requested from the complainants an additional P30, 000 for the preparation and submission of their appellee’s brief in the CA. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC but the respondent did not inform the complainants. They had trouble communicating with respondent. When they finally reached him, he requested for an additional P7, 000 as fee for filing a motion for reconsideration which he did not file. Complainants lost their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of P3, 391,600. Ruling: The Court believes that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath which contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18. CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. The relationship of the lawyer and the client becomes imbued with trust and confidence from the moment that the lawyer-client relationship commences, with the lawyer being bound to serve his clients with full competence, and to attend to their cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. To accord with this highly fiduciary relationship, the client expects the lawyer to be always mindful of the former’s cause and to be diligent in handling the former’s legal affairs. As an essential part of their highly fiduciary relationship, the client is entitled to the periodic and full updates from the lawyer on the developments of the case.
He failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with all good fidelity to his clients and his unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his conduct revealed his irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP. ----------------
BAYONLA VS. REYES 660 SCRA 490, 22 November 2011 Gross Misconduct Facts: Bayonla charged Atty. Reyes with gross dishonesty, deceit, conversion, and breach of trust. Bayonla alleged that she and Alfredo had engaged the legal services of Atty. Reyes to collect their share in the expropriation compensation from the Air Transportation Office (ATO), Cagayan De Oro City agreeing to her attorney’s fees of 10% of whatever amount would be collected; Atty. Reyes had collected P1 million from the ATO; that Bayonla’s share, after deducting Atty. Reyes attorney’s fees, would be P75,000.00, P75,000.00, but Atty. Reyes had delivered to her only P23,000.00, P23,000.00, and had failed to deliver the balance of P52,000.00 P52,000.00 despite repeated demands. Held: The canons are appropriate considering that the relationship between a lawyer and her client is highly fiduciary, and prescribes on a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of her client that may come into her possession. Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 of Canon 16 demands that the lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand, subject to the lawyers lien over the funds, or the lawyers option to apply so much of the funds as may be necessary to satisfy the lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to the client.
By not delivering Bayonlas share despite her demand, Atty. Reyes violated the aforestated canons. The money collected by Atty. Reyes as the lawyer of Bayonla was unquestionably money held in trust to be immediately turned over to the client. The unjustified withholding of money belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on the lawyer. Without doubt, Atty. Reyes failure to immediately account for and to deliver the money upon demand was deceit, for it signified that she had converted the money to her own use, in violation of the trust Bayonla had reposed in her. It constituted gross misconduct for which the penalty of suspension from the practice of law became justified pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. ----------------
RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD/CEO OF FH-GYMN MULTI-PURPOSE AND TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE, AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M.
BATO, JR. AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS 664 SCRA 465, 31 January 2012 Administrative complaint against a Judge Facts: The Court received a letter from Engr. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the FH-GYMN Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative (FH-GYMN). The letter included a complaint-affidavit, complaint-affidavit, whereby Ongjoco charged the CA’s Sixth Division composed of Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (as Chairman), Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino as Members for rendering an arbitrary and baseless decision, Ongjoco maintained that respondent members of the CA’s Sixth Division violated Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution by not specifically stating the facts and the law on which the denial of the petition for review was based. Held: The Court found that the administrative complaint against respondent Justices of the Court of Appeals baseless and utterly devoid of legal and factual merit, and outrightly dismiss it. In administrative cases involving judicial officers, the complainants always carried on their shoulders the burden of proof to substantiate their allegations through substantial evidence.
A judge’s failure to correctly interpret i nterpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does d oes not necessarily necessarily incur administrative liability, for to hold him administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred, will be nothing short of harassment and will make his position doubly unbearable. His judicial office will then be rendered untenable, because no one called upon to try the facts or to interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. Administrative sanction and criminal liability should be visited on him only when the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or is committed with evident bad faith , or only in clear cases of violations by him of the standards and norms of propriety and good behavior prescribed by law and the rules of procedure, or fixed and defined by pertinent jurisprudence. jurisprudence. ----------------
NATIONAL POWER CORP VS HEIRS OF MACABANGKIT SANGKAY G.R. No. 165828, 24 August 2011 Attorneys fees
Facts: Respondents sued NPC for the recovery of damages and of the property alleging that they had belatedly discovered that one of the underground tunnels of NPC traversed their land. NPC countered that the Heirs of Macabangkit had no right to compensation. compensation. RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. Held: The recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is a device that prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the attorney himself. An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for the effort in pursuing the client's cause, taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of legal fees. In the event of a dispute as to the amount of fees between the attorney and his client, and the intervention of the courts is sought, the determination requires that there be evidence to prove the amount of fees and the extent and value of the services rendered, taking into account the facts determinative thereof. ---------------LORENZO SHIPPING CORP. VS. DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT G.R. No. 155849 August 31, 2011 Contempt Facts: DMAP commenced in the CA a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of EO 213 and MC 153. CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. DMAP appealed to the Court which was subsequently denied. In October 2002, DMAP held a general membership meeting (GMM) on the occasion of which DMAP, acting through its co-respondents Lorenzo Cinco, its President, and Cora Curay, a consultant/adviser to Cinco, publicly circulated the Sea Transport Update. Petitioners filed a special civil action for contempt against the respondents. Held: Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed in the presence of or so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or indirect contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the court. The test for criticizing a judge's decision is, whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Viewed through the prism of the test, the Sea Transport Update was not disrespectful, abusive, or slanderous, and did not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Thereby, the respondents were not guilty of indirect contempt of court.
---------------LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NABLE G.R. No. 176692, 27 June 2012 Attorneys fees Facts: The DAR compulsorily acquired a portion of the landholding of respondents pursuant to CARL. However, nable rejected the valuation of LBP. DARAB affirmed the valuation of LBP. After DARAB denied her motion for reconsideration, Nable instituted against DAR and LBP a petition for the judicial determination of just compensation Held: The Court sustain the CA’s deletion of the RTC’s award of 10% attorney’s fees. Under Article 2208, Civil Civ il Code, an award of attorney’s fees requires factual, legal, and equitable justifications. Clearly, the reason for the award must be explained and set forth by the trial court in the body of its decision. The award that is mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision should be disallowed. Considering that the reason for the award of attorney’s fees was not clearly explained and set forth in the body of the RTC’s RTC’s decision, the the Court has nothing nothing to review and pass pass upon. ---------------GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VS CANCINO-ERUM A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182, 5 September 2012 Gross ignorance of the law Facts: GSIS charged respondent RTC Judge Maria A. Cancino-Erum, the then Executive Judge of the RTC in Mandaluyong City, with grave misconduct, misconduct, gross ignorance ignorance of the law, and violation of the Rules of Court. The charges against the respondents were both based on the nonnon- raffling of a Civil Case. Held: The Court have always regarded as a fundamental precept that an administrative complaint against a judge is inappropriate as a remedy for the correction of an act or omission complained complained of where the remedy r emedy of appeal or certiorari is a recourse available to an aggrieved party. Two reasons underlie this fundamental precept, namely: (a) to hold otherwise is to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or to interpret the law in the process of administering justice justice can be infallible in his judgment; and (b) to follow a different rule can mean a deluge of complaints, complaints, legitimate or otherwise, and our judges will then be immersed in and be ceaselessly occupied with answering charges brought against them instead of performing their judicial functions. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption. ---------------IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN AND REPORT ON THE INCIDENT AT BRANCH 49, SAME COURT. A.M. No. 08-4-253-RTC, 12 January 2011 Inefficiency Facts: The Office of the Court Administrator (“OCA”) uncovered the mismanagement of the records of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) in Urdaneta City, while still presided by Judge Joven F. Costales (“Judge Costales”) , , with Atty. Max Pascua (“Atty. Pascua”) as the Branch Clerk of Court. The mismanagement included the following, to wit: (a) some case records bore no dates of receipt by the branch; ( b) several case records did not contain the latest court actions and court processes taken; (c) action had not been taken in some cases from the time of their filing; ( d) the case record of Criminal Case No. U-12848 had not been immediately transmitted to the Office of the Prosecutor, despite the transmittal having been ordered as early as January 19, 2005; (e) some cases had not been set for further hearing, or had had no further actions taken on them; ( f ) the issuances of summonses and alias summonses by the Branch Clerk of Court had been delayed despite the corresponding orders for that purpose; ( g) action had not been taken on cases set for ex parte reception of evidence; and (h) Criminal Case No. U-13095 had been set for trial with respect to one of the accused who had not been arraigned. Held: The sins of Judge Costales consisted consisted of omissions. omissions. To start with, he failed to act on some cases from the time of their receipt at Branch 45 until the period of the audit. And, secondly, he did not properly supervise the court personnel, as borne by the records of some cases either not containing the latest court actions and court processes taken, or not showing the actions taken from the time of their filing, or not being set for further hearing or action, or revealing the delayed issuances of summonses and alias summonses despite the corresponding orders towards that end, or by inaction on cases set for ex parte reception of evidence.
Judge Costales uncharacteristically uncharacteristically ignored that he discharged judicial and administrative duties as the Presiding Judge of Branch 45. He seemingly forgot that his responsibility of efficiently and systematically managing his caseload was the inseparable twin to his responsibility of justly and speedily deciding the cases assigned
to his court. He should have remembered all too easily that he had assumed both responsibilities upon entering into office as Presiding Judge, and that he was bound to competently and capably discharge them from then on until his compulsory retirement. His failure to discharge them properly by organizing and supervising his court personnel with the end in view of bringing them to the prompt dispatch of the courts business in anticipation of his forced retirement reflected his inefficiency and breached his obligation to observe at all times the high standards of public service and fidelity. In this regard, Judge Costales could not deflect the blame to Atty. Pascua as his Branch Clerk of Court. The responsibility of organizing and coordinating the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient performance of the courts business was direct and primary for him as the judge. Truly, the duty to devise an efficient recording and filing system that would have enabled himself and his personnel to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition disposition pertained to him first and foremost. Moreover, he should know that his subordinates were not the guardians of his responsibilities responsibilities as the judge. Being in legal contemplation the head of his branch, he was the master of his own domain who should be ready and willing to take the responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects, as well as to be ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in his court. He could not hide behind the inefficiency or the incompetence incompetence of any of his subordinates. As with Judge Costales, omissions made up Atty. Pascuas myriad faults. Atty. Pascua bore the responsibility responsibility for the non-issuance of summonses or alias summonses in some cases, for the failure to indicate the dates of receipt of case records by Branch 45, for the failure to receive evidence ex parte despite the orders to that effect, for the failure to prepare and submit (or cause the submission of) the monthly inventories, and for the failure to report and update the records of the cases of the branch. Such omissions involved matters that he should have routinely and regularly performed. His duty as the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 45 required him to receive and file all pleadings and other papers properly presented to the branch, endorsing on each such paper the time when it was filed. Atty. Pascua was equally accountable with Judge Costales for the inefficient handling of the court records of Branch 45. His being the Branch Clerk of Court made him the custodian of such records ( i.e., pleadings, papers, files, exhibits, and the public properties pertaining to the branch and committed to his charge) with the sworn obligation of safely keeping all of them. Like his Presiding Judge, he carried on his shoulders the burden to see to the orderly and proper keeping and management of the court records, by which he was required to exercise close supervision of the court
personnel directly charged with the handling of court records. His position of Branch Clerk of Court rendered him an essential and ranking officer of the judicial system performing delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration administration of justice. Alas, he failed to so perform. ---------------SOFIO VS. VALENZUELA 666 SCRA 55, 15 February 2012 Gross negligence of counsel
petitioners did not adduce adduce evidence to prove the the Facts: The CA decreed that the petitioners existence of a tenancy relationship between them and the respondents. respondents. The CA decision became final and executory after the petitioners neither moved for reconsideration reconsideration nor appealed by certiorari to the Court. The petitioners then filed in the CA a motion to recall entry of judgment with motion for leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration. Finding the negligence of the petitioners’ former counsel being matched by their own neglect (of not inquiring about the status of the case from their former counsel and not even taking any action against said counsel for neglecting their case), the CA denied the motion to recall entry of judgment. Held: The gross negligence of counsel alone would not even warrant a deviation from the principle of finality of judgment, for the client must have to show that such negligence resulted in the denial of due process to the client. When the counsel’s mistake is so great and so serious that the client is prejudiced and is denied his day in court, or when the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client’s deprivation of his property without due process of law, the client is not concluded by his counsel’s mistakes and the case can be reopened in order to give the client another chance to present his case. As such, the test herein is whether their former counsel’s negligence negligence deprived the petitioners petitioners of due process of law. ---------------SEVILLA VS. LINDO 642 SCRA 277, 9 February 2011 Ethics; Gross Misconduct
Facts: Daniel G. Sevilla charged Hon. Francisco S. Lindo, with delay in the disposition of Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260 (a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 [BP 22] entitled People v. Nestor Leynes).
Sevilla asserted that Judge Lindo thereby violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires that a judge should administer justice impartially impartially and without delay; that Judge Lindo also violated Section 1, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that justice be impartially administered without unnecessary delay; that Judge Lindo’s unreasonable resetting of the hearings 12 times rendered r endered inconsequential his right to the speedy disposition of his case; and that such resettings were made upon the instance of Judge Lindo, not upon motion of the parties. Held: Judge Lindo is held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases that was tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.
Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at times be unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or unnecessary postponements of court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the administration of justice and, thus, undermine the people’s faith in the Judiciary, aside Judiciary, aside from aggravating the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants. For this reason, the Court has enjoined that postponements and resettings should be allowed only upon meritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial judges to adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements. postponements. Judge Lindo made or allowed too many unreasonable unreasonable postponements postponements that inevitably delayed the proceedings and prevented the prompt disposition of Criminal Case No. JL00-4260 out of manifest bias in favor of the accused, to the prejudice of Sevilla as the complainant complainant in Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260. Thus, he flagrantly violated the letter and spirit both of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoined all judges to administer justice impartially and without delay; and of Canon 6 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which required him as a trial judge "to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied." ---------------REAS VS. RELACION 642 SCRA 266, 9 February 2011 Court Personnel, Misconduct
Facts: Benigno B. Reas, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, in Cebu City charged in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Carlos M. Relacion, Clerk III of the RTC, Branch 15, in Cebu City with gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Reas alleged in his complaint that by prior arrangement, the Clerk of Court of the RTC (COC) delivered to the Cebu CFI Community Cooperative (Cooperative) the salary checks of court personnel with outstanding obligations with the Cooperative to pay for their loans; that his salary check for the period of September 1 to 15, 2004 in the amount of P4,280.00 was delivered by the COC to the Cooperative for that purpose; that when he asked for the receipt corresponding to his payment, the Cooperative informed him that his salary check had been "inadvertently surrendered" to Relacion after the latter had harassed the Cooperative "to a point of violence" to release his (Relacion) own check for that period; that Relacion did not return the salary check to the Cooperative despite repeated demands; that when he confronted Relacion, the latter admitted taking his salary check; that Relacion mauled him when he refused Relacion’s offer to pay his salary check with Relacion’s Judicial Development Fund (JDF) check; and that it was only after the Cooperative confronted Relacion Relacion that the latter paid his salary check. Held: Respondent Relacion was guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires that the officials and employees of the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and declares that any act of impropriety on their part affects the dignity dignity of the Judiciary and the people’s faith in the Judiciary. Thus, Judiciary. Thus, the court personnel must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of their official duties, but also in their private dealings with their co-employees and with the public. Their professional and personal conduct must be free from any whiff of impropriety. ---------------BIDES-ULASO VS. NOE- LACSAMANA A.C. No. 7297, 20 September 2009 Ethics; Notarial Law Facts: Ulaso initiated this proceeding against the respondent on March 2, 2005, praying for the latter’s disbarment due to her act of signing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping attached to the amended complaint co mplaint of Bides B ides and notarizing the t he document sans the signature of Bides and despite the non-appearance of Bides before her.
Held: The respondent’s notarizing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum non -forum shopping in the absence of Bides as the affiant constituted a clear breach of the notarial protocol and was highly censurable. censurable.
Being a lawyer commissioned as a notary, the respondent was mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to her notarial office. Such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest, she could not disregard the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law. It was emphatically her primary duty as a lawyer-notary to obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for the law and legal processes. She was expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. She ought to have remembered that a graver responsibility responsibility was placed upon her shoulders by virtue of her being a lawyer. ---------------TAN VS. HERNANDO A.M. No. P-08-2501, 28 August 2009 Court personnel; Failure to pay debt Facts: Complainant Tan charged respondent Hernando with dishonesty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer. Complainant alleged that respondent reneged in his obligation to pay his loan from complainant despite respondent’s repeated demands. Held: Respondent cannot escape administrative responsibility. The Court cannot overstress the need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of court employees. While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained by the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the public office. Employees of the court should always keep in mind that the court is regarded by the public with respect. Consequently, the conduct of each court personnel should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of (sic) onus and must at all times be characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum. decorum. ---------------NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION VS. CASTILLO G.R. No. 154124, 4 August 2010 Mistake of counsel
Facts: Petitioner National Tobacco Administration moved for reconsideration of the decision of the CSC, ordering petitioner to reinstate respondent Castillo, but was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the CSC also denied because its rules allowed only one motion for reconsideration . Petitioner persisted by filing a petition for admission of the second motion for reconsideration, which the CSC also denied. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for relief in the CSC, arguing that it erroneously filed a second motion for reconsideration instead of an appeal to the CA because of its former counsel’s numerous duties (in addition to being the Deputy Administrator for Operations of petitioner), rendering the compliance with the legal requirements of the case physically and mentally impossible for its counsel.
g enerally bound by the mistakes of his lawyer; otherwise, there would Held: A client is generally never be an end to litigation as long as a new counsel could be employed, and who could then allege and show that the preceding counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned. learned. The legal profession demands of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family; such lawyer should adopt the norm of practice practice expected of men of good good intentions. Moreover, a lawyer owes it to himself and to his clients to adopt an efficient and orderly system of keeping track of the developments in his cases, and should be knowledgeable of the remedies appropriate to his cases. ---------------OLAGUER VS. AMPUAN A.M. No. MTJ-10-1769, 6 October 2010 Speedy disposition of cases; Undue delay in rendering decisions Facts: Complainant Olaguer charged Respondent Judge Ampuan with delay in rendering a decision, gross inefficiency, and conduct unbecoming of a judge relative to his handling of complainant’s case, which has been pending for eight years. Complainant claims that respondent failed to render a decision despite the lapse of six months, and to act on the last two motions complainant filed. Respondent explained that he inherited the case from two predecessors and that the stenographers who had taken the transcript of stenographic notes transferred to another court, causing delay in the submission thereof. Held: Respondent Judge failed in his duty to promptly and expeditiously dispose of complainant’s case. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid re ason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the
full period of ninety (90) days for the completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same. The respondent should have forthwith issued the order directing the stenographers to submit the TSNs after the complainant had manifested that the defendants had not filed their memorandum. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Respondent Judge could have easily sought additional time by requesting an extension from the Court. Without an order of extension granted by the Court, his failure to decide within the required period constituted gross inefficiency that merited administrative sanction. ---------------RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE JUDGE DAMASO A. HERRERA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24 A.M. No. RTJ-05-1924, 13 October 2010 Gross inefficiency; Undue delay Facts: Then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., reported on the cases submitted for decision before newly-retired Judge Herrera, some of which were already beyond the reglementary reglementary period to decide. The report further indicated that Judge Herrera failed to request the extension of his time to decide the cases. In his defense, Judge Herrera cited his heavy workload, lack of sufficient sufficient time, health reasons, and the physical impossibility of complying with the requirements in his explanation. He mentioned that his court inherited about 1,000 cases, many of which included voluminous records and some of which required the retaking of testimonies due to unavailability of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs). He claimed that his regular Branch Clerk of Court had been appointed an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, leaving him to do his work without any assistance. Held: Judge Herrera’s failure to decide his cases with dispatch constituted constituted gross inefficiency and warranted the imposition of administrative sanctions upon him. Judge Herrera’s plea of heavy workload, lack of sufficient time, poor health, and physical impossibility could not excuse him. Such circumstances were not justifications for the delay or non-performance, given that he could have easily requested the Court for the extension of his time to resolve the cases. No judge can choose to prolong, on his own, the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by the law. Without an order of extension granted by the Court, a failure to decide even a single case within the required period rightly constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. ----------------
DE LEON VS. CASTELO A.C. No. 8620, 12 January 2011 Dishonesty and Falsification; Reputation of a lawyer; Duty of Court to shield lawyers from mindless assault Facts: Petitioner De Leon, an intervenor in a civil case, accused respondent Atty. Castelo, the counsel of defendants in said case, with serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification. Petitioner alleged respondent filed for defendants various pleadings despite said defendants being already deceased at the time of filing. Respondent, in his defense, alleged that: (1) it was the children of the defendants that hired him; (2) he prepared the pleadings in the honest belief that the defendants are still alive; and (3) the Office of the Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint of falsification falsification brought against against him. Held: To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest value. 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.
A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that defendants were still living. On living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the pleadings that the defendants were already deceased. The fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not n ot easily restored. A lawyer’s reputation is a very fragile object. The Court must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration administration of justice. ----------------
