Oronce, et al.

vs CA Case Digest
Felicidad L. Oronce, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al.
298 SCRA 133

Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using
abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case
was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.
Issue:won acts of atty flamiano are appropriate
Held: no. Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in
contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making utterances showing disrespect for the
law & this Court, are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says that they “peacefully” took
over the property, such “peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction
that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a member of the legal
profession. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting
“activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”

18 - De Ysasi III v. NLRC

(Father and son feud, illegal dismissal, Counsels should try to avoid litigation)Doctrines:
•

Rule 1.04: A lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end, or settle the controversy if it will admit of a
fairsettlement.Facts:In 1980, De Ysasi III (employee-son) was employed by his father
, who is the private respondent in this case. Itis safe to assume that the employer-father is De Ysasi II. The case does
not say, I swear. Anyway, De Ysasi III
wasworking as farm administrator for his father
in Hacienda Manucao in Negros Occidental. Starting in 1982, De YsasiIII,
the employee son, started suffering from various illnesses which required hospitalization
. First, he underwentfistulectomy which is the removial of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. He had to recuperate for
4 months. Second, he wasconfined for acute gastroenteritis. Third, he was also confined for infectious hepatitis for 2
months. [Ok basta maraminghealth shiz na nagsimula ng November 1982 tapos tumagal hanggang January 1984.
Medyo matagal siyang nawala satrabaho dahil dito, k.]During the entire period of the illnesses, De Ysasi II, the
father-employer, took care of the medical expenses ofhis son and continued to give him his salary. However, in
April 1984,
without due notice, the father stopped paying hisson”s salary.
The son made oral and written demands for an explanation for the sudden stop of his income flow. Thedemands
were not heeded. So, De Ysasi III, the
employee-son, filed an action with the NLRC against his father forillegal dismissal.
Issues:

W/N the father illegally dismissed his son

YES, there was illegal dismissal.

De Ysasi III, the son, maintains that his dismissal was illegal because there was no just cause and that due
processwas not observed. On the other hand, De Ysasi II, the father-employer, says that the dismissal was based on a
justcause. He says that his son was guilty of
abandonment
of his functions as farm administrator, therefore givinghim a ground to terminate employment.
The Supreme Court ruled that the absences of De Ysasi III from work cannot be considered asabandonment because
he has a justifiable excuse.
He was suffering from the scientific mumbo jumbo
illnesses
 mentioned above. During the period of his illness and recovery, De Ysasi III did not stay in the farm in
NegrosOccidental. However, he performed his job as manager which did not require him to stay in the farm itself.
Workfrom home, kumbaga. The father”s contention of abandonment cannot be sustained because it is not mere
absencethat is needed to warrant abandonment. There must be deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume
employmentwhich was not present in this case.De Ysasi III was also refused due process because there is no factual
question that
he was never given any noticeof his impending dismissal and the grounds therefor, much less a chance to be heard.
The father wasordered to pay his son back wages and separation pay.
FINALLY, TO
THE ETHICS PART
. This does not have anything to do with the facts mentioned above. Neitherwas it elaborated on in the case. The
Supreme Court merely stated its
disappointment with the respectivecounsels of the petitioner and respondent for not trying hard enough to avoid
litigation between a fatherand a son
. They did not initiate steps which would lead to the reconciliation of the family. The Court remindedthe counsels
that it is
their duty to avoid litigation as much as possible, as long as justice would still beserved
. That”s the gist of it but here is what the Court said:The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties sorely
disappoints the Court…It is their
responsibility to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably outof court and especially in
consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients.
The
useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation butto avoid it whenever possible
by advising settlement or withholding suit.Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides
that
“(a) lawyer shallencourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fairsettlement.”
On this point, we find that both counsel herein fell short of what was expected of them. The records do not show
that they took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting arapprochement between their clients.

Pajares vs. Abad SantosFACTS:

In 1961, Pajares ordered from Udharam Bazar quantities of ready-made goods which were delivered to
her ingood condition and some were already sold, but she did not make the full payment. She was sued
before theMunicipal Court of Manila for recovery of a certain sum of money because of her indebtedness
in the amount ofPhp 354.85. Instead of answering the complaint against her, Pajares, however, moved for
a bill of particularspraying the inferior court to require Udharam Bazar to itemize the kinds of goods
which she supposedlypurchased from the said company, the respective dates they were taken and by
whom they were received aswell as their purchase prices, alleging that without this bill she would not
be able to meet the issues raised in thecomplaint. The motion, and the motion for reconsideration was
denied, she then brought the incident oncertiorari to the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging in
support of her petition that in denying her motionfor a bill of particulars, the respondent judge acted in
grave abuse of discretion. It was again denied so Pajaresundertook the present appeal to the SC,
contending under her lone assignment of error to maintain her appeal,that the lower court erred in
dismissing her petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. The simplecollection case dragged on
for seven years.

Whether counsel for petitioner failed in his duty to encourage amicable settlement.

Yes. The appeal is frivolous and a plain trick to delay payment and prolong litigation unnecessarily. Such attitude
deserves condemnation, wasting as it does, the time that the courts could well devote to meritorious cases.
This simple collection case has needlessly clogged the court dockets for over seven years. Had appellant been but
prudently advised by her counsel to confess judgment and ask from her creditor the reasonable time she needed to
discharge her lawful indebtedness, the expenses of litigation that she has incurred.
 16 PEOPLE v ROSQUETA

Facts:
 There was a criminal case against Antonio Rosqueta, Jr., Eugenio Rosqueta and Citong Bringas. On
appeal, the SC issued a resolution ordering Atty. Gregorio Estacio (counsel de parte of the accused) to
explain why disciplinary actions should not be taken against him for his failure to file the brief for
appellants during the required period.
 Estacio failed to explain, so he was suspended from the practice of law.
 He then filed a motion for reconsideration saying that he did file the briefs but he sent it to Rosqueta Sr.,
whose house was burned down along with the briefs. He also said that the reason why he did not file the
briefs was because the accused declared that they intended t withdraw their appeal for lack of money.
 The SC did subsequently receive affidavits from the accused withdrawing their appeal.
Issue:
 W/n Estacio’s acts should be punished.
Held:
 SC says yes. His acts were not consistent with the idea that the law is not a business but a
profession. Lawyers do their job not for the sole consideration of money. Estacio should have continued
with his duties despite knowing that the accused did not have money anymore.
 SC commended what some lawyers would have done in that situation which was to be declared as
counsel de officio so that the client remains properly represented by a lawyer who is already familiar
with the case.
 SC said that Estacio’s suspension for 5 mos. is already sufficient punishment for his acts. Thus, the
suspension is lifted and Estacio is not anymore required to file the briefs but he is censured for negligence
and inattention to duty.

De roy v CA

The firewall of a burnedout building owned by petitioners Feliza De Roy et al.

collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents Luis Bernal et al., resulting
in injuries to private respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents had been warned
by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so.
Private respondents filed a case before the RTC, First Judicial Region, Branch The RTC ruled in favor of
respondents, finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence. The petitioners appealed to the CA, which affirmed the
ruling of the RTC. Petitioners then filed their a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration on September 9, 1987, which was the last day of the 15 day period to filed an appeal but was
denied by the CA on September 30, 1987. They filed their motion for reconsideration on September 24 but was
denied in a resolution dated October 27, 1987. In denying the motion, the CA correctly applied the rule in the case
of Habaluyas Enterprises v Japzon where it was stated that the fifteenday period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case
should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the nonpublication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official
Gazette at of the time the subject decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated.
Issue:
Whether or not the rule in the Habaluyas case should be applied.
Held:
The ruling in theHabaluyas case should be made to apply to the case at bar,notwithstanding the non-
publication of the Habaluyas decision in the OfficialGazette.

There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in theOfficial Gazette before they
can be binding and as a condition to theirbecoming effective. It is the duty of the counsel as lawyer in
active lawpractice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court, which arepublished in the advance
reports of Supreme Court decisions (G.R.’s) and inpubications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated
(SCRA) and law journals. Canon 5 duty to be abreast of the legal developments
The ruling in the Habaluyas case was that the 15-day period for appealing orfiling a motion for
reconsideration cannot be extended. Such motion may befiled only in cases pending in the Supreme
Court as the court of last resort,which in its discretion may grant or deny the extension requested.

Jose v ca

J o s e w a s c o n v i c t e d o f i l l e g a l
p o s s e s s i o n o f
e x p l o s i v e s ( h a n d g r e n a d e ) a n d s e n t e n c e d t o suffer
imprisonment of five years.
-
He seeks a new trial but was denied by the CFI of Pampanga and affirmed
b y t h e C A . - J o s e w a s a r r e s t e d by the local police for illegal discharge of firearm,robbery and illegal
possession of explosives.
-
Hon. Romero acquitted accused Jose of illegald i s c h a r
g e o f f i r e a r m a n d r o b b e r y , b u t
c o n v i c t e d h i m f o r i l l e g a l
p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e h a n d g r e n a d e t h a t w a s f o u n d
o n h i s p e r s o n at the time of his arrest.-
Jose filed before the SC but was denied.
-
Thus this Motion for Reconsideration.
-
M a n i f e s t a t i o n w a s s u b m i t t e d b y t h e
S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l i n f o r m i n g t h e C o u r t t h a t
i n v i e w o f the "persistence of accused petitioner Lorenzo Jose
both before this Honorable Court and respondent Courtof Appeals as to his alleged existing appointment
as PCAgent and/or authority to possess hand
grenade," in thei n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , h e w a s c o n s t r a i n e d t o m a k
e pertinent inquiries from the PC Chief, Gen. FidelV . R a m o s w h o i n r e p l y s e n
t h i s l e t t e r d a t e d D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 7 4 t h a t
s t a t e s t h a t M r . L o r e n z o J o s e w a s a p p o i n t e d
a s P C A g e n t . T h e Solicitor General now concedes that the
i n t e r e s t s o f justice will best be served by remanding this case to thecourt of origin for a new trial.

I S S U E :

W O N C A c o m m i t t e d a n e r r o r o f l a w a n d g r
a v e l y a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i t
d e n i e d petitioner's motion for new trial "for the receptiono f ( 1 )
t h e w r i t t e n p e r m i t o f p e t i t i o n e r
t o p o s s e s s a n d u s e h a n d g r e n a d e , a n d ( 2 ) t h e w r i t t e n
a p p o i n t m e n t of petitioner as PC agent

HELD:YES

This is a situation where a rigid application of rules

o f procedure must bow to the overriding goalof courts of justice — to render justice where justice is duet o
s e c u r e t o e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l a l l p o s s i b l e l e g a l m e a n s to prove his innocence of a crime of
which he is charged.
It is indeed an established rule that for a new trial to beg r a n t e d o n t h e g r o u n d o f n e w l y
d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , it must be sho wn that
(a) the evidence was discovereda f t e r t r i a l ; ( b ) s u c h e v i d e n c e c o u l d
n o t h a v e b e e n discovered and produced at the trial
even with thee x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e ; ( c
) t h e e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l , n
o t m e r e l y c u m u l a t i v e , c o r r o b o r a t i v e , o
r i m p e a c h i n g ; a n d ( d ) i t m u s t g o t o t h e m e r i t s
a s o u g h t t o produce a different result if admitted.-

H o w e v e r , p e t i t i o n e r h e r e i n d o e s
n o t j u s t i f y his motion for a new trial on newly discovered
evidence, but rather on broader grounds of substantial justice undue Sec. 11, Rule 124 of the Rulesof Court
which provides:"Power of appellate court on appeal. Upon appeal from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance, the
appellate courtm a y r e v e r s e , a f f i r m , o r m o d i f y t h e j u d g m e n t a n d i n c r
e a s e o r r e d u c e t h e p e n a l t y i m p o s e d b y t h e t r i a l court, remand the
case to the Court of First Instance for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case."

People v pineda

Teofilo Mendoza and frustrated murder valeriana Mendoza and their 3 children were killed by respondents, the
judge directed thecity fiscal to unify the 5 criminal cases and to file single information and drop the other 4 cases.
The city fiscal sought for consideration thereof. The respondent judge denied it.

Issue: may a city fiscal be compelled to file a single information in this case

Held: no. the benefit of the doubt belongs to the prosecuting atty. The prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a
particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof,
or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. Canon 6 primary task of prosecution is justice is
done

People v Madera
Elino Bana was sleeping on his bed when he wasshot by Madera. Behind Mader were 2 other people.Before Bana
died, he identified Madera as his
shooter. 2 of Bana’s sons who were in the house
when it happened, identified Madera as one of theshooters as well as the 2 other men behind him. Thecourts
convicted the 3 of them for murder. TheSolicitor General recommended the conviction ofMadera, but he also
recommended the acquittal ofthe other 2 men.
Issue:
WON the conviction is correct.
Ruling:

No. Although, Madera’s guilt was proven

beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the 2 menwere not even established & did not show that theyshared the same
criminal intent as Madera. Alias totoy and alias ross aquitted

The courts finest hour is not when he wins his casewith the conviction of the accused but when
he pleads not for the conviction of the accused, but forhis acquittal. For indeed, his noble task is to
prosecute only the guilty and protect the innocent.”
Tan v gallardo

FACTS
-
Solicitor General Estilito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Alicia Simpio
-
Diy and Solicitor Eduardo L. Kilayko
for respondents.
Estanisloo A. Fernandez and Dakila F. Castro & Associate as private prosecutors.
-
petitioners seek the annulment of respondent Judge's Orders in the Criminal Case People of the
Philippines v Jorge
Tan, Jr, Cesar Tan, Teofanis Bondoc, Osmundo Tolentino,
Mariano Bartido and Librado Sode for frustrated murder
and Double Murder of the son and uncle of Mayor Inigo Larazzabal.
-
Judge Pedro Gallardo made the two life sentences to death penalty allegedly after meeting with Mayor
Larazzabal
and receipt of othe
r paraphernalia such as whisky and wine according to the court stenographer.
-
Jan 14, 1976
-
SolGen, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, submitted his Comment to the petition. They are
"persuaded that there are bases for stating that the rendition
of respondent Judge's decision and his resolution on the
motion for new trial were not free from suspicion of bias and prejudice... therefore, they interpose no
objection to the
remand of the aforementioned criminal cases "for the rendition of a new decisio
n by another trial judge."
-
Jan 30, 1976
-
private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the
respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this case.
-
Feb 12, 1976, the petitioners moved to strike out the "Moti
on to Admit Attacked Comment" and the "Comment" of
the private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has "absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings
before this
Honorable Court and, hence, without any personality to have any paper of his entertai
ned by this Tribunal”
-
private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court, to take part in the
proceedings,
and to adapt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General.
ISSUES
1. WON private prosecutors have
the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor General and to adopt a stand
inconsistent with that of the latter
2. WON respondent Judge should be disqualified from further proceeding with the criminal cases
HELD
1. NO
Ratio
Private prosecutors
cannot intervene independently of and take a position inconsistent with that of the Solicitor
General.
Reasoning
-
Participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of
October 1,
1975, thus: "to co
llaborate with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be
required by this Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor
General. It was never
intended that the private prosecutors could ad
opt a stand independent of or in contravention of the position taken by
the Solicitor General.

It is for the purpose of realizing the aforementioned objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed
under the
direction, control, and responsibility of the prosecuting officer.
-
Role of the private prosecutors
is to represent
the offended party with respect to the civil action for the recovery of
the civil liability arising from the offense. This civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal
action, unless the
offended party either expressly waives the civil action or re
serves to institute it separately. Thus, "an offended party may intervene in the proceedings, personally
or by attorney, specially in case of offenses which can not be
prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party The only exception to this is wh
en the offended party waives
his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the case, in
which case he
lost his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosec
ution. in any event,
whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention must always
be subject
to the direction and control of the prosecuting official.