ARTIAGA JR. V.

VILLANUEVA

Facts: This case is about the disbarment case filed by Artiaga against Villanueva for alleged unethical
practices. The case started with the controversy over 2 parcel of lands with revocable permit applications,
originally the permits belong to a certain Malabayabas and Suyo, which was later on sold to the client of
Artiaga. However on a later date, when the client of Villanueva filed for revocable permit application it was
found out that the area being claimed has already been titled to the client of Artiaga. Hence the dispute was
brought to the Bureau of Lands for decision. Initially the Director of Lands rendered a decision in favour of
the client of Artiaga, however it was appealed by Villanueva and the decision was change, after another
appeal the final decision was in favour of the client of Artiaga. The decision being final and executory an
order of execution was issued however the client of Villanueva remained in possession of the said parcel
of lands. Thereafter a series of motions and case where filed by Villanueva as a dilatory tactics to seek a
favourable ruling.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Villanueva is considered unethical.

Ruling: The court ruled that acts of Atty. Villanueva is in violation of his oath that he wll do no falsehood
nor consent to doing of any in court. According to the court it was clear that atty. Villanueva caused his
client to commit perjury so that the forceful entry case will fall under the jurisdiction of the court, this is
shown by the intentional amendment to the original complaint par 5, wherein under the original complaint
the time line was 1960, while on the amended complaint the time stated is 1973, the court state that the
reason for such change is so that the action may still be filed or entertained by the court, since the action
prescribes one year after accrual of cause of action. The court further states that it is expected that a lawyer
will defend the client’s cause with zeal, however in doing so it should not disregard its duty to the court and
the truth. Due to his actions the client was in another case charged with perjury, which is detrimental to the
client. The court also found that atty. Villanueva is guilty of lack of condor and respect for the court and the
rights of his adversary, as shown in the case, the client of Artiaga has already won the case, however
Villanueva filed urgent ex-parte motions and instead of waiting for the result of such, he perfected his
appeal, thus further delaying the implementation of the first lawful order of the court. Furthermore when his
appeal was denied, Villanueva turned to other venues such as CAR for positive results, in doing so he did
not disclose of the prior proceedings that was held in the court thus securing an ex-parte proceeding. In
this case the court found Villanueva guilty of forum shopping.

Violation: Canon 12 – “A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.”

Rule 12.02 – “A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.”

Rule 12.04 – “A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes.”

Rule 12.06- “A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.”

Rule 10.01 – “A lawyer shall do no 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 10.03 – “A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends
of justice.”