VDA. DE VICTORIA V.

CA
FACTS:
Respondent spouses Luis and Zenaida Gibe filed a
complaint for Ejectment and Damages against Isidra
Vda. de Victoria (mother of petitioner Mario
Victoria) and 3 others 2/ the MTC of Calaluan,
Laguna. The Gibe spouses alleged:
1.

2.

They acquired a parcel of land from heirs of

late Judge Lantin designated and as Lot 1-B153-A w/ 27,064 sqm
That ppty was originally part of Lot 1-B-153
w/ an area of 34,829 sqm subdivided into 7
parcels among J. Lantin and 4 of his tenants

All defendants in the ejectment case, as former

tenants., were given home lot while J. Lantins was
sold to to Gibe spouses.
3.

4.

In the course of fencing J. Lantins house, it

was
discovered
that
Victoria
house(petitioners) was standing on the NW
portion of the ppty; and that Mrs. Victoria
was harvesting and picking fruits from the
citrus trees planted WITHOUT the
permission of the Gibe spouses; and that 3
other defendants were also planting palay
on that NW portion.
The fencing was discontinued after the
children of Mrs. Victoria threatened to
shoot at the workers of the Gibe spouses w/
an armalite raffle leaving other part of the
ppty OPEN and UNFENCED.

At the Prelim Conference of the ejectment case, the

aprties mutually agreed to a relocation survey to be
conducted by a geodetic engr.

He instituted another special civil action for

certiorari questioning both RT and MTC w/ prayer
for the issuance of a TRO and q Writ of Prelim.
Injunction reejcetment.
CA dismissed the CA Certiorari Petition for it again
filing a flawed remedy and petition was filed OUT OF
TIME (shd be 60-allowed period; petitioner had 67
days from receipt of assailed RTC and SCdecision).
Had petitioner filed a motion for NEW trial or econ
in DUE TIME, the period fixed could have been
interrupted.
HELD:
Appeal must be denied. The Court gave 30 day
extension conditioned on the timeliness of the filing
of the Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition
For Review. REMEDIAL LAW- extension of time must
be filed before the expiration of the period sought to
be extended.
But, if mtion for extension of time is filed beyond the
period of appeal, the same is of no effect since there
would no longer be any period to extendjudgment
will have become FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
IN THE CASE AT BAR: Reglementary period to appeal
had in fact expired almost 10 MONTHS Pprior to the
filing of petitioners motion for extension of time.
(Resolution of CA June 5, 2000 while filing was
made Apr 10, 2001; hence, petitioner had only til
JUNE 20, 2000 to file an appeal for new tria.).
Similarly instant petition must be dismissed for
having been filed on May 12, 2001, almost 11
months after the expiration of the period to appeal
on June 20, 2000.

Defendants filed a Motion reqesting the trial court

to allow the to engage services of an independent
surveyor at their expense. Although the motion was
granted, NO resulting survey plan was submitted by
them.

Rules of Procedure must be FAITHFULLY allowed.

Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of
procedure should be an effort on the part of the
party invoking liberality to adequately explain his
failure to abide by the rules.- NO COGENT
explanation.

Ms. Victoria turned out, had passed away before the

MTC promulgated, her son, petitioner,Mario Victoria
substituted for her.

NOTE: MTC has jurisdiction

The RTC dismissed the petition for Certiorari (for

certiorari refers only if theres error in jurisdiction
NOT judgment). Mario filed an MR but RTC denied
the MR.

The Court pointed out with consternation

petitioners attempts, with the aid of his counsel,
atty, Abdul Basar, who deliberately mislead the
Court as to the material dates and status of the

decision appealed from, thereby impending if nor

frustrating ends of justice.
The Court emphasized: CANON 10, Rules 10.1 and
10.03. Given 10 days to show why they should
not be held in contempt of court

unlawful discrimination since Allied Bank did not

transfer Junior accountants in Cebu. (Termination
was illegal due to lack of due process).
Allied Bank filed a petition for review questioning
decision and resolution of NLRC.

ALLIED BANKING CORP. V. CA

CA RULNG: The appellate court agreed that transfer

from a smaller branch was effectively a demotion.
Also agreed that Allied Bank afford no due process
because there was no hearing and notice of
termination.

FACTS:

HELD:

Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired

by Allied Bank and rose from accountantbookkeeper to Asst. Manager covered by a Notice of
Personnel Action w/c provides that he can be
assigned or transferred in any branches of the bank
as the need arises.

PRELIMINA Dosch decision. GalanidaRT MATTER:

MISQUOTING SC DECISIONS

RULING: PETITION DENIED.

Private respondent manifested his refusal to be

transferred to Bacolod due to parental obligations,
expenses, anguish if he is away from his family He
then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for
constructive dismissal.
Private respondent refused when asked by the bank
to report to TRgbnilaran City branch and sent a letter
to show the offenses and penalty from refusal of
transfer. He then charged Allied Bank w
discrimination and favouritism that only those who
are seasoned officers can be rtransferred to other
distant branches.
Galanida received an inter=-office communication
letter from Allied Bank VP for Personnel re his
termination due to: (1) his refusal to be transferred
in Jakosalem, Cebu City branch; (2) refusal to report
for work despite the denial of his app for VL.

The phrase aforementioned does NOT appear

anywhere in the Dosch decision. Galanidas counsel
lifter the erroneous phrase from one of the italicized
lines in the syllabus of Dsoch found in SCRA NOT
work of the Court; the syllabus was simply the work
of the reporter who gives understanding of the
decision. this is for the convenience of lawyers to
read reports.
In short, they made a SCRA syllabus appear as
words of the SC.
Volation of Rule 10.02, CANON 10 that a lawyer shall
not knowingly misquote or mispreprsesent text of a
decision or aujthority.
It is the duty of all officers of the court to cite the
rulings and decision of the SC accurately.
NOTE: a WRITTEN NOTICE must be served prior to
termination. They cannot terminate a person when
the latter has not received a letter yet re his
termination.

RULING OF LABOR ARBITER: Allied Bank had abused

it management prerogative. Galanidas refusal to
transfer did NOT amount to insubordination. But the
Labor arbiter, MISQUOTED the Courts decision in
Dosch v. NLRC, by adding the sentence: Refusal to
obey a transfer order cannot be considered
insubordination where employee cited reason sch as
that being far away from family.

RULING: Remanded to Labor arbiter for

determination of computation of 30 days
backwages. Labor arbiter is ADMONISHED to be
more careful inciting decision of SC.

RULING OF NLRC: The termination of Galanida was

without just cause, i.e., the transfer order was
unreasonable and unjustified, considering the family
considerations mentioned by Galnaida. NLRC found

FACTS:

SAMAR MINING CO. v. ARNADO

Acting upon a claim for compensation filed by Rufino

Abuyen, for a disease allegedly contracted in the

course of his employment as foreman in Samar

Mining Co., Inc. Petitioner was ordered by DOLE to
provide continued medical treatment and
hospitalization to the claimant until his tuberculosis
is cured or arrested and to pay onaccordance w/
workmens compensation fund.
Petitioner filed an MR but the same was denied by
the court after aooropriate proceedings and
dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WN there has been such designation by
Arnado to Tan
HELD:
It is NOT disputed that respondent Tan is a labor
atty., and as such he has no authority to hear claims
for compensation and to render decisions thereon.
Respondent Tan had acted not as Labor Atty but as
Hearing officer granted by Him by the previous Labor
Adminstrator to try and hear the merits f the
compensation case. or
But the court had stressed another point: the illness
on which ABuyens claim had taken place in 1956.
Yet,through the present case, petitioner had
successfully prolonged the litigation for the
compensation for 12 YEARS. But now, the
compensability of Abuyens disability had never
been questioned.
Hence it is manifest that the purpose of this case has
been merely to DELAY accdg to J. Reyes: as a
means of draining the resources if the poorer party
and of compelling iot to submit out of sheer
exhaustion.
Thus, the counduct of petiitoners counsel is hardly
compatible w/ the duty of the bar to assist in Admin
of justice NOT to obstruct or defeat the same.
RULING: CA DECISION AFFIRMED.

BIASCAN V. LOPEZ
FACTS:
This case stems from a disbarment case fuile dby
complainant Rosalina Biascan against respondent
Atty. Marcial F. Lopez for alleged fraud or

misreresentaiton, breach of his duty as iffucer of

court, and betrayal of oath.
Rosalina Bisacan averred that she was the courtappointed admistratrix of the estate of hee decease
father, Florencio Biascan. Estate is subject a special
proceedings pending before RTC. In an order, RTC
declared complainant and her brother the heirs of
the late Florencio.
However, in complete disregard of the intestate
proceedings, a certain Maria Biascan (cousel Attty.
Marcial Lopez) executed an Affidavit of SelfAdjudication where she falsely represented herself
as the SOLE heir te deceased. RESULT: New TCT was
issued in her name. Respondent Lopeza registered
the TCT w/ the RD wo further approval of the
intestate court and thus taking advantage of the
said fraud.
Later, respondent sold said lot to spouses Danilo
and Corazon Arganoz. In Lopezs comment he denied
ciommission of fraud and asserted he acted in good
faith. Accdg to him, Biascan reported in her
inventory not the Sampaloc ppty but only the
Novalicehs.
In the Courts Resolution, the instant complaint was
referred to IBP (Recommendation was to SUSPEND
atty for 3 YEARs) and now before the SCs
confirmation.
Respondent lawyer must have gone over the records
of the Special Proceedings as a counsel. By
registering said title and assigning to Maria Bsucan,
he transgreesed Art. 1491, CC expressly prohibiting
lawyers from acquiring ppty of rights that ,ay be the
object of any litigation. Therefore, he is liable for
malparactice.
As a lawyer and officer of the Court, he should have
respected the Order and refrained from doing any
act
which would have rendered the Order
ineffectual. Violates CANON 1 respect for law and
legal processes.
RULING: SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ; SUSPENSION OF 6
MONTHS

TORRES v. JAVIER
FACTS:
By complaint, Atty Ireneo Torres and Mrs. Natividad
Celestino (complainants) charge Atty. Jose
Concepcion Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct
in office as an atty. and/or violation of oath.
It stemmed from the statements made by
respondent in the pleadings he filed in petition for
audit of all funds of the UE Faculty Association as
counsel of the latter before the DOLE.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION this is based on
respondents Urgent Motion to expedite w/
manifestation and reiteration of Posiiton filed in
audit cases w/ complainants allege contained
statements
which
are
absolutely
false,
unsubstantiated, and with malicious imputation of
crimes of robbery, theft of UEFA funds among
others.
Olice officers stated that there was no forcible entry
but noted that air con was slightly moved to mislead
that suspect as the same as their point of entry.
This was related to the Andersen officials who
shredded docs related to the Enron scandal WHEN
THEY THOUGHT NOBODY WAS LOOKING. As in the
Andersen case, individual respondents-appellants
knew that the law was going to come knoking at
their door, asking a lot of questions about financial
matters. NO robbery but an inside job.
Complainnats aver violation of CANON 10, Rule
10.01 and Rule 138 that he obey the laws and do no
falsehood for pointing to them as the persons who
intentionally committed the robbery at the UEFA
office and for citing the Andersen case it being
irrelevant, impertinent, and immaterial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION use of absive, offensive
and improper language.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION statement of respondent
that notaries public take affidavit and admister oath
and certify docs for their girlfriendsm nephews, etc.
demeaning to the integrit of the legal profession
Investigating officer of IBP found respondent guilty
of violating the CPR for using inappropriate and
offensive remrks in his pleadings and recommended
REPRIMAND. (Respondent admits that he was angry
when he wrote the Manifestation). Utterance:

Repsondent Torres is a member of the Philippine

Bar. But what law books is he reading?
HELD:
It is well-entrenched in Phil. Jurisprudence that for
reasons of public policy, utterances made in the
course of judicial proceedings are privileged so long
as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject
inquiry, however false or malicious they be.
In keeping w/ the dignity of the legal profession, a
lawyers language must be dignified and choice of
language is important in the prep of pleadings
CANON 8 Rule 8.01 instructs that respondent s
arguments in his pleading should be gracious to both
the court and opposing counsel and be of such
words as may be properly addresses by one
gentleman to another.
RULING: SUSPENSION OF 1 YEAR

TIONGCO v. AGUILAR
FACTS:
Atty. Jose B. Tiongco was required by the Court to
show cause why he should not be dealt w/
administratively for violation of CANON 11.
His language against the decision of the Judge:
crafted in order to fool the winning party; as a
hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favour; one you
could have sworn it was Devil who dictated it; one
w/ perfidious character.
In his compliance he alleged that if he has called
anyone liar or rthief or perfidious, it is because he is
in fact a liar and that the Honorable First Division
called him a robber, abetter and rotten manipulator.
In that letter, it must at once be noted that he did
not at all show cause why he should not be dealt w/
administratively for violation of CANON 11 in view of
his unfounded and malicious insinuation. He did NOT
offer any excuse for his ise of the rest of the
intemperate words.
COMPLIANCE IS UNSATISFACTORY AND ENTIRELY
UNACCEPTABLE. WHY?

1.

2.

3.
4.

He impliedly admitted the falsity of his

insinuation that this Court did not read the
petition
He failed to address squarely the other
intemperate word except liar, thief,
perfidious, and blasphemer.
Did not indicate circumstances upo which
his defense of truth lies
Miserably failed to show the relevance of
harsh words to his petition

SERIOUS VIOLAITON OF CANON 11

The right to criticize as guaranteed by our freedom
of speech must be exercised responsibly for every
right carries w it a corresponding obligation.
FREEDOM is NOT FREEDOM from RESPONSIBILITY
but FREEDOM W/ RESPONSIBILITY.
RULING: ORDERED TO PAY P5000

ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Atty. Alan F. Paguia,s peaking for petitioner Erap,
that the inhibition of the members of SC from
hearing the petition was called for under Rule. 5.10
OF Code of Judicail Conduct prohibiting judges from
participating in any partisan political activity, which
proscription, the justices violated by attending the
EDSA 2 RALLY and authorizing the assumption of
GMA to Presidency.
Petiitioner contends that justices have thereby
prejudged the case that would assail the legality of
the act taken by GMA/=.
The truth referreed to by movant means the
going to EDSA 2 and authorizing the proclamation of
VP Arroyo as Pres on the gorund of permanent
disability even w/o proof of compliance.
Counsel of Erap averred that during their MR,
justices have shown bias and partiality against his
client and added foul and disrespectful language of J.
Chico-Nazario: magmumukha naman kaming gago.
Thus petitioner filed for a Motion for
Disqualification.--> denied
Atty. PAGUIA: An act of justice, if lawful is an act of
SC. But the act of justices if unlawful, is NOT the act

of SC. It refes to the decision in Estrada v. Arroyo

alleged to be patently unlawful in view of Rule 5.1 of
Judicial Conduct.
Atty. Paguia has not limited his discussions to the
merits of the clinets case w/ the judicial forum but
he has REPEATED his assault on the Court in
Broadcast and Print media.
RULE 13.02 prohibits a member of the bar from
making such public statements on any pending case
tending to arouse public opinions on for or against a
party.
Accdg to SC, it is NOT the first time that Atty Paguia
has exhibited similar conduct that in a letter
addressed to CJ Hilario Davide and Artemio V.
Panganiban, has demanded in a clearly disguised
form of FORUM SHOPPING, for several advisory
opinions on matters pending before the
Sandiganbayan.
Atty, aguia remained still with the Rule 5.10 re
judges entitlement of entertaining personal views in
political questions. But shall not conduct speeches,
endorse a candidate, and other partisan political
activites.
Partisdan political activity- as defined in Omnibus
Election Code, it is an act designed to promote the
election or defeat of a particular candidate or
candidates to a public office which shall include:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Forming orgs for the purpose of soliciting

votes
Holding political caucuses, conferences,
committees, for or against candidate
Making speeches, announcements, or
commentaries for or against a candidate
Publishing or distributing campaign
literature to support or oppose election o
any candidate
Directly or indirectly soliciting of votes,
pledges for or against a candidate.

NOTE: The taking of an oath by the Pres. is a

traditional official function of the Highest Magistrate
and the presence of other justices at such an event
could be no different from their appearance in such
official functions.
CANON 11 Respect to courts

RULE 13.02- prohoibitng member of the bar from

making such public statements that may tend to
arouse public opinion.
But Atty, Paguia persisted the Courts admonition by
writing an article in the Daily Tribune re
unconstitutionality of the decision in Estrade v.
Arryo.
RULING: INDEFINITE SUSPENSION

EARTH MINERALS v. MACARAIG, JR.

FACTS:
Zambales Chromite Mining is the exclusive owner of
10 patentable mining claims located in Sta. Cruz,
Zambales.
On Sep 11, 1980, Zambales Chromite and Phizea
Mining and Devt Corp. as operator, entered in a
Contract of Devt, Exploitation, and Productive
Operation on the 10 patentable mining claims.
During the lifetime of the conteact, Earth minerals
Exploration, Inc submitted a letter of intent to
Zambales Chromite whereby the former proposes
and the latter agreed to ipearte same mining area s.t
earlier agreement bet the first 2 parties.
On Nov. 29, 1984 Earth Minerals filed a petition for
cancellation of contract w/ the Bureau of Mines and
Ge-Sciences Center between Chromite and Philzea.
CONTENTION: Earth Minerals alleged that Philzea
Mining failed to produce agreed volume of chromite
ores and failure to pay ad valorem taxes, among
others.
Accordingly, BMGS resolved the petition for
rescission on the basis of the docs submitted ex
parte by Earth Minerals. Thus, Philzea filed a petition
for certiorari w/ CA dismissed, hence this petition.
ISSUES: W/N the motion of Philzea was out of time
and W/N Earth Minerals is the proper party to seek
cancellation of the agreement.
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE. In the case at bar, the next working day
after Nov. 16, Sat. was Nov. 18 - a Monday- it is

evident that the private respondent;s appeal was

filed on time )(5 days from receipt o Nov. 11)
SECOND ISSUE. Earth Minerals is a proper party. Art.
1311 contracts take effect only between parties
who made it except in cases where rights are
intransmissible by their nature. Thus, since a
contract may be violated only by the parties, the real
parties in interest, either as plaintiff or deendant
must be parties to said contract.
Petitioner seeks cancellation because his rights are
prejudiced by said contract and this stemmed from
the continued existence of the first parties contract
(cannot derive benefits as long as the first 2 parties
contract subsists)
Administrative findings of facts shall be supported by
evidence. Such finding (Director of Mines that there
appears some color of right to rescind contract) will
NOT be disturbed as long as they are supported with
evidence. FACTUAL FINDINGS shall be respected.
There was FORUM SHOPPING. When during the
pendency of petition for certiorari, the petitioner
filed a notice of appeal to the Office of the
PRES.from the said decision of MNR stating that the
appeal was without prejudice to the pending
decision of CA.
FORUM SHOPPING there is forum shopping,
whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favourable opinion)other than
appeal or certiorari) in another.The principle applies
not only in the suits filed in courts but also in
connection with litigation while an adminstratvie
proceeding is pending.
RULING: PETITION GRANTED.