CHAPTER III.

THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent
the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as
law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS
AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to
the proper authorities only.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has

adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case,
the evidence he will adduce and the order of its proferrence. He
should also be ready with the original documents for comparison
with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness
during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to
misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness
nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client,
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or
custody of an instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his
testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS
CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS
TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING
THE COURT.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by
another branch or agency of the government in the normal course
of judicial proceedings.

Carlet v. CA
G.R. No. 114275
July 7, 1995
I.

Facts
Lot 981 of the Bian Estate in Laguna was purchased by Jose Sevillo
in 1910 to which the TCT was placed in his name
Jose Sevillos marriage to Severa Bayran produced four sons, one of
which was Pablo, who had 4 children (surnamed Sevillo) after
marrying Antonia.
In 1949, Pablo Sevillo declared Lot No. 981 for taxation purposes
under Tax Declaration Nos. 6125 and 2586 even if the property was
still in Jose Sevillos name.
In 1955, Pablo, by then a widower, married Candida Baylo, who had
a daughter, Cirila Baylo Carolasan, who was sired by another man.
In 1965, Pablo Sevillo, with Candida Baylo, filed a petition before the
Court of First Instance for reconstitution of title. Reconstitution was
allowed and TCT No. RT-926 was issued in the name of Pablo
Sevillo, married to Candida Baylo.
After their death, heirs of Cirila Baylo Carolasan, all surnamed
Zarate and herein private respondents, filed a case for annulment of

deed of sale over Lot 981 and for partition of property among the
surviving heirs of Pablo Sevillo, which the court ordered.
The decision being final, a writ of execution was issued. The Sevillos
filed a case to annul the decision before the IAC, but was dismissed
as the case was already res judicata. The SC denied their petition
for review for lack of merit.
The Zarates then filed an ejectment suit against the Sevillos, where
the Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the Zarates. The Sevillos
filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC, citing the lack of
jurisdiction of the MTC, which the RTC affirmed. But this decision
was reversed by the CA. The petition for review of the Sevillos was
dismissed.
On July 1, 1991, Ligo Carlet, as administrator for the estate of Pablo
and Antonia, filed an action for reconveyance against the Zarates. It
was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, as it had already been
decided on by the SC. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

II.

Issue
Whether or not the adjudication in the previous case constitutes
res judicata to the case at bar - Yes.

III.
Held
There are 4 requisites to invoke res judicata: (a) finality of the former
judgment; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the
merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second actions
identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.
The petitioner does not dispute the existence of the first 3
requirements. What needs to be determined is the existence of
identity in parties, subject matter and cause of action.

There is identity of the parties in the case for reconveyance.

Ligo Carlet, though the administrator represents the same
heirs as in the case for partition, which are the Sevillos.
o Subject matter is the same Lot 981.
o The test often used in determining whether causes of action
are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence
which is necessary to sustain the second action would have
been sufficient to authorize a recovery. In both cases,
evidence relies on the question of ownership.
It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to
litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated republicae ut sit finis litium. And an individual should not be vexed
twice for the same cause - nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem
causa.
o

IV.
Legprof
On the issue of forum-shopping, the counsel for petitioners did not
violate it, as it only applies when 2 or more cases are still pending.
However, in filing this present action Atty. Modesto Jimenez violates
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers
which states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to
the court. Rule 10.01 of the same Canon states that (a) lawyer shall
not do any falsehood x x x nor shall he mislead or allow the court to
be misled by any artifice. Counsels act of filing a new case involving
essentially the same cause of action is likewise abusive of the courts
processes and may be viewed as improper conduct tending to
directly impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice.
Bautista v. Gonzales
A.M. No. 1625
February 18, 1990
I.

Facts
In 1976, in a complaint by Angel Bautista, Atty. Ramon Gonzales
was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and

violation of the lawyers oath. Basically for the ff:

o Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients,
namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha
Fortunado to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a
contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the
property in litigation.
o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in Civil Case No. Q15143, wherein Eusebio Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants
and, without said case being terminated, acting as counsel
for Eusebio Lopez, Jr.
o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the
Fortunados, which properties are the subject of the litigation
while the case was pending
o Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter
into a contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the
development into a residential subdivision of the land
o Submitting to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
falsified documents purporting to be true copies of
"Addendum to the Land Development Agreement
o Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to complainant
who was his client
o Harassing the complainant by filing several complaints
without legal basis before the Court of First Instance and the
Fiscal's Office of Quezon City;
o Deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance and the
Fiscal's Office by making false assertion of facts in his
pleadings;
o Filing petitions "cleverly prepared (so) that while he does not
intentionally tell a he, he does not tell the truth either."
Respondent denied the charges. The court referred the case to the
Solicitor General who investigated and submitted that the
respondent be suspended for six months finding him guilty of the ff:
a. transferring to himself one-half of the properties of his clients
during the pendency of the case where the properties were

involved;
b. concealing from complainant the fact that the property subject
of their land development agreement had already been sold at a
public auction prior to the execution of said agreement; and
c. misleading the court by submitting alleged true copies of a
document where two signatories who had not signed the original
(or even the xerox copy) were made to appear as having fixed
their signatures
Respondent filed to refer the case to the IBP for investigation in
accordance with Rule 139 of the Rules of Court

II.
Issues
W/N Rule 139-B is a requirement that must be followed? No!
W/N Atty. Gonzales is guilty of malpractice? Yes!

case has been ongoing for 13 years)

III.
Held
Sec 20 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court states that:
This Rule shall take effect on June 1, 1988 and shall supersede the
present Rule 139 entitled DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF
ATTORNEYS. All cases pending investigation by the Office of the
Solicitor General shall be transferred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors for investigation and disposition as
provided in this Rule except those cases where the investigation has
been substantially completed.
The contention of the respondent that Rule 139-B is untenable,
because reference to the IBP is not mandatory nor an exclusive
procedure. The Supreme Court may conduct investigations may
conduct disciplinary proceedings without the intervention of the IBP
by referring cases for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any
officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court. Also, by the
time the rule took effect, the SG was already done with its thorough
and complete investigation. To refer the case to the IBP would not
only result to a duplication of proceedings, but also to a delay. (the

Respondent prepared a document entitled "Transfer of Rights" which

was signed by the Fortunados.The document assigned to
respondent one-half (1/2) of the properties of the Fortunados. He
violated the law expressly prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his
client's property or interest involved in any litigation. Although Canon
10 of the Old Code of Professional Ethics does not appear anymore
in the new Code, he still violates the first canon, which states that "a
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal process.
He also violates Art 1194 of the Civil Code, which prohibits him from
purchasing the property, because of the existing trust relationship,
which is reflected in Canon 16 and 17 of the new Code.
The transfer of the properties to respondent was, as reflected in the
contract, to be absolute and unconditional, and irrespective of
whether or not the land development agreement was implemented
or not. Respondent also failed to inform the complainant of the sale
of the land to Samauna during the negotiations for the land
development agreement. He fails to uphold honesty.
He is also guilty of falsifying documents, which he presented to the
Court as having been signed by the Fortunados, when in fact they
have not.
He also violates Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to
pay or bear the expenses of litigation. In his contract, the Fortunados
agreed on the 50% contingent fee, provided, that Gonzales defray
all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
For the charges of representing another client, with a conflict of
interest, he was not found to be guilty for the Fortunados had given
consent. He is also not guilty harassing the complainants by filing
several complaints.
Atty. Gonzales was suspended for 6 months for misconduct.

IV.

Legprof
Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that
"the lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject matter
of the litigation which he is conducting,"
Canon 16 provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession."
Canon 17 states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."

Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA

G.R. 100643
October 30, 1992
I.

Facts
Atty. Benjamin Dacanay, who was counsel for Adez Realty, Inc. was
charged with intercalating (change) a material fact in the judgment of
the court.
In Dacanays explanation, he said that when he prepares petitions
for the CA and the SC, he dictates portions to be quoted, which his
secretary types and copies. In the case at bar, he did instruct his
secretary to copy the corresponding pages in the decision of the
Court of Appeals. Somehow, however, some words were

intercalated on a particular paragraph noted by the Honorable Court

he regrettably is at a loss to explain. He says that this is due to the
numerous pleadings necessitating his attention. He asked for the
forgiveness of the court.
In an affidavit, his secretary admits and takes responsibility for the
error, mainly due to the fact that numerous Adez cases passes
through their office.

II.
Issues
Is Atty. Dacanay guilty of intercalating material facts? Yes!
III.
Held
He was disbarred.
This "passing-the-buck" stance of counsel was already aptly treated
in Adaza v. Barinaga, Making the law office secretary, clerk or
messenger the scapegoat or patsy for the delay in filing of pleading,
motion and other paper and for the lawyer's dereliction of duty is a
common alibi of practicing lawyer. Like the alibi of the accused in
criminal cases, counsel's shifting of the blame to his office employee
is usually a concoction utilized to cover up his own negligence,
incompetence, indolence and ineptitude.
For, how could the secretary have divined the phrase "without notice
to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," without
counsel dictating it word for word? The inserted phase "without
notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," was just
the right phrase intercalated at the right place, making it highly
improbable to be unintentionally. The lifting a portion of the assailed
decision is a malicious attempt to gain undue advantage.
IV.
Legprof
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck the
allegation in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted portions,
and ensure that the statements therein are accurate and the
reproductions faithful.

Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the Code of Professional

Responsibility directs that "[a] lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative
by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
proved"
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
State on those who show that they possess, and continue to
possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege. On of those requirement is the observance of
honesty and candor.
Their duty is not to their clients but rather to the courts.

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. CA

G.R. 123698
August 5, 1988
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 springs
eternal for petitioner, considering that the issues raised in 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 (funny!)
I.

Facts
In 1981, respondent-spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin
filed a complaint against Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation for
quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of
Title in the RTC of Caloocan. RTC rendered the title void.
Being final and executory, spouses Seelin moved for execution
which was granted by the lower court. It also filed for a writ of
possession, which was opposed by Eternal Gardens contending that
it was unaware of the suit against Central Dyeing, and that it was the
true owner of the lot having bought it from Central Dyeing in good
faith.
But since it bought the lot from Central Dyeing, the judgment of the
RTC is binding to it, being the successor-in-interest.
Petitioner went to the CA, which dismissed the case affirming the
RTC judgment citing Section 20, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court,
which states that a transferee pendente lite does not have to be
included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the
judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against
the original party or the transferor and still be binding on the
transferee.

II.

The petitioners filed for a motion of reconsideration which was

denied. Then, they brought it to the SC, which upheld the CA
decision.
For the second time, petitioners filed for reconsideration with the CA
stating that that the decision of the trial court in said case never
mandated Central Dyeing to deliver possession of the property to
the private respondents; that certain facts and circumstances which
occurred after the finality of the judgment will render the execution
highly unjust, illegal and inequitable; that the issuance of the
assailed writ of execution violates the lot buyers freedom of religion
and worship; and that private respondents title is being questioned in
another case.
Hence, the case in the SCagain.
Issues
?

III.
Held
Petition must fail.
Petitioners fear that the grave lots will be disturbed, desecrated and
destroyed once the execution of the judgment proceeds is more
imagined than real. A perusal of the Orders of the trial court with
regard to the execution of the judgment reveals that the interests of
said burial lot owners have been taken into account by the trial court
when it took steps and made suggestions as to how their rights
could be amply protected.
"The court directs and orders the defendant to give access to the
plaintiffs and as proposed by the plaintiffs, they are given authority to
destroy a small portion of the fence so that they can have access to
the property. But as to the demolition of the burial lots, negotiation
could be made by the defendant with the former owner so that cash
payment or cash settlement be made.
that the enforcement of the writ of possession and break open order
should be applied only to the gate of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park

who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was
made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became
one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated
that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court
is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.

at the eastern side nearest to the parcel of land in question where

the factory of the defendant is located, in order to avoid disturbing
the peace of the resting souls over the graves spread over the
parcels of land within the said memorial park."
IV.

Legprof

We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their
clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they should not
forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

In Re: Vicente Almacen

G.R. L-27654
February 18, 1970
(http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/09/in-re-vicente-almacen/)
I.
Facts
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case.
They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the
time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He
then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with
the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually,
Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which
outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as
unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to
surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to
continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men

The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the
Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate.
Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now argues
that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give
reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him . . . in an open and public hearing. He said he preferred this considering
that the Supreme Court is the complainant, prosecutor and Judge.
Almacen was however unapologetic.
II.

Issues
Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
III.

Held

Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed
because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion
for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to
effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme
Court is to decide only those cases which present questions whose
resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and
parties involved. It should be remembered that a petition to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the courts denial. For one
thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals
opinion.
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded
said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly

disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the

court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms
and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as
a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful
manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has
always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all
such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of
decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of
the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he
should have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify
the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and
will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is
the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
IV. Legprof
For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties
which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession
places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more
imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows
solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity ... to the courts; and the
Rules of Court constantly remind him "to observe and maintain the respect
due to courts of justice and judicial officers." The first canon of legal ethics
enjoins him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the
sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance."