Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg

Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and 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 Ng v Alar Ng is one of the respondents in a labor case; Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the labor case. The case was filed when employees of the Ng Company alleged that they did not receive their service incentives because the Ng Company refused to pay because a strike was conducted on company premises hampering entrance and exit into the area. It was later found that the incentive pay had been paid. 2. When the NLRC dismissed the appeal, Aar filed an MR with a motion to Inhibit, where Alar used scandalous, offensive and menacing language to support the complaint. He called the labor arbiter crossed-eyed in making his findings of fact and that the NLRC commissioner acted with malice in ruling that the labor arbiter decided correctly. 3. He also alleged that NLRC retiring commissioners circumvent the law when the money claims involved in the cases are large. Because of this a disbarment case was filed against him saying that he violated cannons 8 and 11. 4. Alar argues that he did not violate them because 1) NLRC is not a court contemplated by he rules 2) NLRC commissioners are not judges 3) the complaints in labor cases are bound to be heated and that they are entitled to some anger. He counterclaimed that the lawyers of Ng are the ones in violation of the CPR by filing multiple suits from the same cause of action and that they deliberately lessened the number of complainants in the labor case. The commission on bar discipline found alar guilty of violating the CPR. Issue: W/N Alar violated the CPR? Held:yes contempt.

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court and it is his duty to maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. While he is expected to bring forth irregular and questionable practices of those sitting in court it is important that this criticism shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. His statements bear badges of falsehood because the version of the witnesses disputes his statements. He maliciously made these declarations irresponsibly. The libelous attack on the integrity and credibility of Justice Tinga degrade the dignity of the court and erode public confidence in it. Fined 30k

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 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 except: a) on formal matters, such as 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. Berbano v Barcelona 1. Berbano seeks the disbarment of Barcelona. Berbano is the heir of a certain Hilapo, owner of a 244-hectare lot in Alabang, this land is being claimed by Filinvest and is currently subject of a case pending in the Commission on the Settlement of Land problems. Their counsel, Daen, was arrested by Muntinlupa police on the strength of an expired warrant of arrest. In order to secure his release they sought the assistance of Barcelona. 2. Barcelona said that he needed 50k to cause the release of Daen the next day. When Berbano said he couldnt, Barcelona said even a small amount was required. Berbano was able to raise 15.7k and met Barcelona in a Chowking across the jail. He then asked to be met the next day at 12nn at Maxs Restaurant. He left then to supposedly meet a Supreme Court justice who would help with the release of Daen. 3. The next day Barcelona said he had fixed the situation but did not possess any document. He was handed a pay to cash check for 24k, but said that SC justices dont accept check. He called later to say that 5k must be produced and to meet him at Maxs. When he didnt show he wanted to meet in Mc Donalds in mandaluyong. His wife later called to tell them to proceed to their house, which was near the McDonalds. Berbano gave 10k instead of 5k. He said he was unable to secure Daens release because the check could not be cashed. 4. Daens nephew paid 15k and 1k for gas expenses. Days later, daen still had not been released and when called, Barcelonas wife said he had flown to Mindanao to attend peace talks with the Muslims. When confronted he offered to return the total amount of 64k but was never heard from again. After the complaint was filed the IBP found him guilty and suspended him for 6 years. Issue: W/N Barcelona should be disbarred? Held: Yes.

1.

The motion he filed contained insults attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be bought. He used improper and offensive language, which cannot be justified. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be dignified and respectful. He deserves not only a warning but also a fine of 5k.

The counter-complaint is dismissed because there was no position paper submitted to substantiate the claims. Fudot v Cattleya 1. De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga, the ponente in the Fudot case, be inhibited because it was alleged that he received P10m from Chan in exchange for a favorable decision. De La Serna suggests that Tinga abandoned the doctrine in Lim v Jorge to accommodate Chan. 2. He also said that Tinga prioritized the case and that Chan already knew of the outcome of the case before the decision was promulgated. 3. Chan related that he approached De La Serna for the purpose of amicably settling the case, and offered him to be their retainer in Bohol. He denied having said to De La Serna that he had already spent so much money for the Supreme Court. Issue W/N Serna Is guilty of indirect contempt? Held: Yes.

Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the court by setting up opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It is not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the courts orders but it also brings authority of the court and administration of law into disrepute or in some manner impedes the due administration of justice. Indirect contempt is one committed out of or not in the presence of the court but tends to be little, degrade obstruct or embarrass the court and justice. Improper conduct tending to directly or indirectly impede obstruct or degrade the administration of justice is also indirect

Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg

The object of the disbarment proceeding isnt so much to discipline the attorney as it is to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court from the misconduct of officers of the court and to remove from the profession persons who have no regard for their oath of office and are unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. In this case Barcelona collected money to secure the release of Daen through a supreme court connection. n fact this is not the first time he has been charged with this offense. He makes a mockery of the judiciary and erodes public confidence in the judicial system and should be disbarred. the name of his clients, the Panaguinips. He did no register the sale so it would not appear in the BIR/Register of deeds so that he would not have to pay for the expenses of the sale and transfer twice, that once he decided to sell or place them in his childrens name he would not have to pay estate or inheritance taxes. As a lawyer he ought to know 1491, which prohibits him from acquiring property in litigation where he appears as counsel of record. Suspended 1 year.

Sebastian v Bajar 1. Sebastian filed a disbarment case against Bajar for obstructing, disobeying, resisting, rebelling and impeding final decisions of the RTC, CA, SC and for submitting the decisions to an administrative body for review and reversal, and other delaying tactics. Bajar is a lawyer from Bureau of Agrarian legal assistance and appears as counsel for Tanlico, an agricultural lessee of land owned by Sebastians spouse. 2. Tanlico was embroiled in an ejectment case and was ordered to leave the land. RTC judgment affirmed by CA and SC. Bajar filed for specific performance to produce the conversion order, but this was dismissed for Lack of cause of action and because of res judicata. Bajar filed another case for maintenance of possession with the Department of Agrarian reform adjudication board (DARAB) and raised the same issues as in the ejectment case. 3. Sebastian then filed the complaint against Bajar for violating the CPR. Bajar was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely but despite this she continued her practice as prosecutor in Mandaluyong City because she allegedly did not know of such fact. Issue: Did she violate canon 12? Held: yes.

She filed cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling, which was affirmed by the CA AND THE SC. The cases for specific performance and maintenance of possession despite the finality of the decision in the ejectment case were an abuse of right of recourse to the courts. The forum shopping she committed caused vexation to the courts and the litigants. She, as a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not to the extent that it jeopardizes truth and the administration of justice. She disobeyed her duties as a lawyer and officer of the court and showed utter disrespect for the court and the legal profession. Not disbarred but suspended 3 years.

Manipud v Bautista 1. Manipud was mortgagee of property owned by Macasieb. When Macasieb failed to pay, Manipud extajudicially foreclosed on the property. Bautista as counsel for the mortgagor filed with the RTC a complaint for annulment of the REM and injunction against the sale. The RTC rule against Macasieb. 2. Atty Bautista thereafter filed another case for the same cause of action. It contained the same cause of allegations, involving the same parties, the same subject matter, the same facts and the same issues AND the same relief. 3. Manipud argues that this is a clear case of forum shopping and such improper conduct is a violation of the CPR. Bautista claims that the second complaint was just a desperate attempt to restrain the sale of the property of his client, he claims he is not guilty of forum shopping because he did not act willfully, maliciously or with ill intent. He said he disclosed in the second complaint the pendency of the original action. He said that the second complaint was only out of pity for his client who was about to lose her family home due to the unconscionably high monthly interest being charged against her. 4. The case was referred to the IBP and IBP found that Bautista is the nephew of macasieb. It was alleged that Bautista collaborated with an impostor because the complaints referred to De Macasieb but were signed only Macasieb. It appears that the loans received in 2006 were received by someone else because de Macasieb had been dead since 1968. Manipud argues that this ploy of using a dead person to enrich himself was not befitting a member of the bar. IBP dismissed the complaint upon finding that Bautista acted in good faith and did not commit forums shopping intentionally. Issue:W/N the complaint against bautista should prosper? Held: no. The act of allegedly resurrecting Macasieb from the dead to allow an impersonation was never raised as an issue before the IBP or the SC thus the complainant could not raise the same in this late stage of the proceedings. The complaint for forum shopping is also dismissed as bautista acted in good faith. As, if he intended to commit forum shopping he would not have indicated that the first complaint had been filed, nor would he have attached a copy of it. It is important in determining in w/n there is forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and party-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or different admin agencies to rule on the same or related cases and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. In this case there was no undue vexation as in fact the filing of the first case was alleged in the second complaint and that both cases were raffled to the same branch the first case was dismissed by the court. There was never any danger of different courts ruling on the same issues. 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 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. Foodsphere v Mauricio 1. Foodsphere is in the business of meat manufacture and processing, canned goods and grocery items under the brand name CDO. Mauricio is popularly known as Batas Mauricio a columnist for tabloids including Tiktik, Toro, Hataw and Balitang Patas BATAS. He is also a host of a TV program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS and a radio program DOUBLE B-BATAS NG BAYAN. He is the subject of a disbarment complaint by Foodsphere for gross immoral conduct, violation of lawyers oath and disrespect to the courts and investigating prosecutors.

Hegna v Paderanga 1. Henga is the lessee of a lot in Cebu City owned by Baclayon. The lease was for 10 years at the rate of 3k per year or 250 a month. Henga filed a forcible entry case against Panaguinip because the former had built a shop on the premises without their permission. He obtained a judgment in default against Panaguinip because they failed to file an answer. Sheriff levied on properties of the Panaguinip to enforce the damages awarded by the court. In the midst of all of this Paderanga filed an affidavit of third-party claim, claiming that he was the owner of certain lot and vehicle held by the Panaguinips. He filed the case to prevent these from being erroneously levied upon. Henga filed a complaint against Paderanga for deliberately falsifying documents, which caused the delay in the execution of the decision rendered by MTCC Cebu. The criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence of guilt. 3. IBP found that there was evidence to support the complaint against Paderanga.It found that there multiple irregularities surrounding the execution of the affidavit and the fact that the letter left by panaguinip was not rebutted by paderanga. The letter asked for mercy and forgiveness in relation to the forcible entry case and such letter would no longer be necessary if indeed there was a genuine transfer of ownership of properties owned by panaguinip to their counsel Paderanga. There was substantial evidence that the third party claim was to thwart enforcement of the forcible entry case. 4. In any case Paderanga acquired property of his client, in violation of 1491 the following persons cannot acquire by purchase even at public auction, either in person or through another lawyers with respect to property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession Paderanga suspended for 1 year. Issue: w/n there was a genuine transfer? w/n suspension proper? Held: There was an anomaly, which constitutes a violation of the CPR. The vehicle and land were still in

2.

Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg

2. A certain Cordero allegedly bought CDO goods from a grocery in Valenzuela and it was alleged that the liver spread they bought contained worms. Cordero filed a complaint with the BFAD. Cordero demanded 150k as damages and Foodsphere because this was against company policy and it was outrageous. Mauricio sent CDO the would be front page of a tabloid, containing articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its products. Mauricio threatened to publish the article unless CDO paid cordero the 150k.

CDO offered to pay for actual medical and incidental expenses, which were supported by receipts. But this was turned down by Cordero. It raised its offer to 50k, split between Cordero and Mauricios foundation. Mauricio also directed CDO to place ads in the tabloids and in his TV program.Cordero withdrew his complaint before the BFAD. BFAD dismissed and Mauricio signed as witness, wrote in a later article that he prepared the Kasunduan between the two. When negotiations for the advertisements fell through, Mauricio, on his radio program, announced a contest Aling liver spread ang may uod? Anyone who guessed was to be given prizes. He also wrote articles, which put CDO in a bad light. 4. After this, CDO filed libel cases against Mauricio and company. He was ordered by the IBP not to make further statements on the matter. Not withstanding this he continued to publish articles and speak out against CDO. IBP ordered him suspended for 2 years. He now challenges validity of suspension. W/N Suspension valid? Held: yes! 3 years instead! Continued attacks despite pending cases in court are in violation of rule 13.02. despite the pendency of the cases against Mauricio (libel) he continued his attacks against them. This is a clear violation of the CPR. Mauricio was improperly using media to influence public opinion. Suspension of Bagabuyo 1. This case stemmed from the events in a criminal proceeding where a certain Plaza was accused of murdering a policeman. It was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Buyser, who denied the demurrer to evidence of the accused and declared that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for homicide but not murder. 2. Plaza motioned to fix the amount of bail but Prosecutor Bagabuyo objected because the original charge was not subject to bail. Buyser inhibited himself from the case because Bagabuyo insinuated that he lacks the cold neutrality required of a magistrate. Buyser was alleged to be the one who suggested the filing of the motion for fixing of bail. Tan fixed bail at 40k. 3. Bagabuyo thereafter caused the publication of an article regarding the order granting the bail in Mindanao Gold star daily senior prosecutor lambasts surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out. Bagabuyo argued that murder is non0bailable but admitted a judge could opt to allow a murder suspect to bail out in cases when the evidence of the prosecution is weak. He claimed that the judge found evidence to be strong and that he was not afraid to be cited for contempt because it was the only way for the public to know that there are judges like that. 4. RTC directed Bagabuyo to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court. He refused to explain and RTC held him in contempt of court. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and posted bail and was released. In spite of these events he presented himself to the media for interviews and again attacked the integrity of the judge. He was ordered suspended Issue was the suspension proper? Held: Yes. Canon 11 mandates a lawyer observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. He violated this when he indirectly stated that the judge was ignorant of the law and that instead of studying the law he was playing mahjong. He also violated 11.05 when he caused the holding of a press conference to air out his grievances instead of addressing them to the proper authority. He also violated 13.02 when he made statements to the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. He made statements in that published article which were made while the criminal case of Plaza was still pending. He is suspended for 1 year.

3.