TING-DUMALI vs. ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES

Facts:

- complainant Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres with presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer

- complainant is one of the six children of the late spouses Ting. Parents died and left several parcels of land

- resp participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when they executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, wherein the two made it appear that they were the sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, knowing fully well that the same was false

- He participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement when he knew that she was in Italy at that time working as an overseas contract work

- 1995, the resp made gross misrepresentation and offered false testimony to the effect that Marcelina and Felicisima are the only children and legal heirs of the late spouses Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for the purpose of obtaining a new title in their names.

- Resp made gross and false misrepresentations for the purpose of profiting therefrom when he requested the buyer to release the full payment for Lot 1605 under the pretense that the order of reconstitution would be released within a month when he knew that it would be impossible

- IBP found the actuations to be violative of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the CPR. Thus she recommended that the respondent be disbarred

- Board of Governors approved and adopted Commissioner report, but reduced the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for six years.

Issue: WON disbar

Held: yes

Ratio:

- The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession.

- records show that Felicisima and Miriam stated in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11 November 1986 that they are the children of Julita Reynante and thus adjudicated only between them Lot No. 1586 to the exclusion of their other siblings.

- There was concealment of the fact that there were other compulsory heirs to the estate of the deceased. Significantly, the respondent is the brother-in-law of complainant. Being married to complainant’s sister, he knew of his wife’s siblings.

- respondent was consulted regarding the falsification of complainant’s signature. Marcelina admitted that she signed complainant’s name. Such act of counterfeiting the complainant’s signature is tantamount to falsification

- Instead of advising Marcelina to secure a written special power of attorney, he presented such document to secure a new title for the lot in favor of Marcelina and his wife. He himself, therefore, may also be held liable for knowingly using a falsified document to the damage of the complainant and her other co-heirs.

- Respondent did not advise his wife and his sisters-in-law from doing acts which are contrary to law.

- Respondent’s argument that the non-declaration by his wife and his sister- in-law Marcelina of the other siblings was a mere oversight does not deserve credence

o the petition clearly names only Felicisima and Marcelina as the petitioners when there were six siblings who were heirs of the unpartitioned lot.

o during the hearing of said case when the respondent asked Marcelina whether she has brothers and sisters other than Felicisima, the latter said none.

- The respondent allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony in court- Moreover, in knowingly offering in evidence such false testimony, he himself may be

punished as guilty of false testimony. - Moreover, the respondent requested the release of 50% of the remaining balance for

the sale of Lot 1605, relaying that he was assured by the Clerk of Court that the order directing the reconstitution of title for Lot 1605 would be released within the month.

- Respondent’s information was misleading because he presented evidence only on 12 August 1997, or almost a year after he sent the letter. Such act, therefore, shows lack of candor and honesty on the part of the respondent.

- Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession.

- They constitute gross misconduct for which he may be disbarred or suspended pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 .He is thus ordered DISBARRED

MASINSIN vs. THE HON. ED VINCENT ALBANO

Facts:

- This case emerged from an ejectment suit filed by respondent Cañeda then as plaintiffs, against herein petitioners. MTC rendered ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and to remove their house/apartment and surrender possession

- petitioners filed a petition seeking the annulment of the decision=> dismissed- The petition was in due time dismissed. Again, no appeal was taken therefrom.- complaint for "Annulment of Judgment, Lease Contract and Damages" was filed again=>

dismissed on the ground of res judicata. - petappealed the dismissal to CA=> dismissed- When petitioners refused to remove their house on the premises in question,, an order

of demolition was issued. Shortly thereafter, the demolition began.- Unfazed by the series of dismissals of their complaints and petitions, petitioners assailed

anew the MTC decision in a petition for certiorari- RTC : ultimately, dismissed the petition with costs against petitioners- petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila has lost jurisdiction when the property in

question was proclaimed an area for priority development by NHA => without merit.o Please be informed that Lot 6-A, Block 1012 located at No. 1890 Obesis St., Pandacan, Manila

which is the subject matter of the case and located within the Carlos Estate declared as APD site pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 1967, is not for acquisition by NHA.

o The Carlos Estate is located outside of the NHA projects under the Zonal Improvement Project (ZIP) and Community Mortgage Program (CMP). The site, however, is under the administration of the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor (PCUP) for acquisition and upgrading.

o The above information answers the uncertainty concerning the status of the alleged negotiation for the acquisition by the government of certain areas in Metro Manila. The NHA is definitely NOT acquiring the said lot for its program.

Issue: WON pet guilty of delaying execution of decision

Held: Yes

Ratio:

- What immediately catches one's attention to this case is the evident predilection of petitioners, through different counsel, to file pleadings, one after another, from which not even this Court has been spared.

- The utter lack of merit of the complaints and petitions simply evinces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable execution of a decision

- Four times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel, try to nullify the same MTC decision before different branches of the court, trifling with judicial processes. Never, again, should this practice be countenanced.

- The lawyer's oath to which we have all subscribed in solemn agreement in dedicating ourselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere fictile of words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that we must uphold and keep inviolable

- We have since emphasized in no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the court, which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an exercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power.

- petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners' counsel of record is hereby strongly CENSURED and WARNED

YOUNG vs.. BATUEGAS

Facts:

- Atty. Walter T. Young filed for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegafor allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer’s oath.

- Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-187627 for Murder when resp Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the “accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he is now under detention.”

- Upon personal verification with the NBI where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, complainant learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000

- Resp Susa calendared the motion on Dec 15 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects, namely, the lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the failure to attach the Cert of Detention

- Resp filed their respective comments, declaring that on December 13, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail with the trial court.

- due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14, 2000.

- They argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI.

- As regards the lack of notice of hearing, they contend that complainant, as private prosecutor, was not entitled to any notice. Nevertheless, they furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing

- presiding judge instructed her to receive the Motion subject to the presentation of the Cert of Detention. Thus, the inclusion of the Motion was authorized by judge

- IBP-Commission => SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months

Issue: WON guilty of deliberate falsehood

Held: Guilty

Ratio:

- Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention.

- That they were able to show that their client was already under the custody of the NBI at the hearing held on Dec 15, 2000 does not exonerate them. The fact remains that the allegation that the accused was in the custody of the NBI on Dec 13, 2000 was false.

- In prosecution was served with notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date. Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed to show any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice

- SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months

DE LEON, vs. CASTELO

Facts:

- This administrative case, which Jessie R. De Leon concerns respondent attorney’s alleged dishonesty and falsification committed in the pleadings he filed

- the Govt brought suit for the purpose of correcting TCTs covering two parcels of land then registered in the names of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a public callejon and on a portion of the Malabon-Navotas River

- De Leon, having joined as a voluntary intervenor two years later now accuses the respondent, the counsel of record of the defendants with the serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification.

- The respondent’s sin was allegedly committed by his filing for defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of various pleadings despite said spouses being already deceased

- respondent rendered the following explanations in his comment, to wit:

o The persons who had engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family

o That William and Leonardo Lim were already actively managing the family business

o That because of the execution of the deed of absolute sale, William and Leonardo Lim had since honestly assumed that their parents had already caused the transfer of the TCTs

o Considering that William and Leonardo Lim themselves were the ones who had engaged his services, he consequently truthfully stated in the motion seeking an extension to file responsive pleading dated the fact that it was "the family of the defendants" that had engaged him, and that he had then advised "the children of the defendants"

o He (Atty. Castelo) prepared the initial pleadings based on his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were then still living.

Issue: WON guilty of falsehood

Held: not guilty

Ratio:

- respondent did not commit any falsehood or falsification in his pleadings - respondent filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim in behalf of Spouses Lim

Hio and Dolores Chu

o The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are ADMITTED. Moreover, it is hereby made known that defendants spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had already sold the two (2) parcels of land, to Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 – 502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila. Hence, Leonardo Lim and William Lim are their successors-in-interest

o In order to properly and fully protect their rights, ownership and interests, Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu as substitute/representative parties in this action

o Plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel in bringing this suit, as it was the one who, by its governmental authority, issued the titles to the subject property.

- This action is barred by the principles of prescription and laches for plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in brining this suit, particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein answering defendants acquired the subject property in good faith

- If truly plaintiff has a clear and valid cause of action on the subject property, it should not have waited thirty (30) years to bring suit.

o principal defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, having sold and conveyed the subject property, have totally lost any title, claim or legal interest on the property. It is on this factual ground that this Motion for Substitution is based and certainly not on the wrong position of Intervenor de Leon that the same is based on the death of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu.

o Under the foregoing circumstances and facts, the demise of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu no longer has any significant relevance to the instant Motion.

o movants-defendants Lim have become the indispensable defendants in the principal complaint of plaintiff DENR, being now the registered and lawful owners of the subject property

- the respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.

- respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed the answer with counterclaim and cross-clai. As such, his pleadings were privileged and would not occasion any action against him as an attorney.

- De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the action as a voluntary intervenor charged him with notice of all the other persons interested in the litigation.

- we dismiss the complaint for disbarment

Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty

Facts:

- Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind

- Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against Justice Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya

- members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law published a statement on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.

- Essentially, the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism in his work.

- while the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but a truth.

- In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.

- first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.

- The authors also not only assumed that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they went further by directly accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort women in Vinuya

- They further attempt to educate this Court on how to go about the review of the case. - The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately

delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.

- The publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP College of Law regarding the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance.

- the motion for reconsideration of the decision alleged to contain plagiarized materials is still pending before the Court. We made it clear in the case of In re Kelly that any publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the jury, the parties, the officers of the court, the counsel with reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is contempt of court and is punishable.

- The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration.

- As if the case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision

- WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law, are directed to SHOW CAUSE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGE OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST DEL CASTILLO.

Facts:

- Pet Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of the decision that dismissed their charges of plagiarism in connection with the decision he wrote in Vinuya v. Romulo.

- petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines. This claim is absurd. The Court condemns plagiarism as the world in general understands and uses the term.

Issue: WON there was plagiarism

Held: None

Ratio:

- Plagiarism, a term not defined by statute, has a popular or common definition. To plagiarize, says Webster, is “to steal and pass off as one’s own” the ideas or words of another. Stealing implies malicious taking.

- There is no commonly-used dictionary in the world that embraces in the meaning of plagiarism errors in attribution by mere accident or in good faith.

- But the Court’s decision in the present case does not set aside such norm. The decision makes this clear, thus:To paraphrase Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the originality of the writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages

courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect. The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from.

- Original scholarship is highly valued in the academe and rightly so. But the policy adopted by schools of disregarding the element of malicious intent found in dictionaries is evidently more in the nature of establishing what evidence is sufficient to prove the commission of such dishonest conduct than in rewriting the meaning of plagiarism.

- Surely, if on its face the student’s work shows as a whole that he has but committed an obvious mistake or a clerical error in one of hundreds of citations in his thesis, the school will not be so unreasonable as to cancel his diploma.

- In contrast, decisions of courts are not written to earn merit, accolade, or prize as an original piece of work or art.

- Judges issue decisions to resolve everyday conflicts involving people of flesh and blood who ache for speedy justice or juridical beings which have rights and obligations in law that need to be protected. Justice, not originality, form, and style, is the object of every decision of a court of law.

- There is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level of courts, including the Supreme Court, not to use original or unique language when reinstating the laws involved in the cases they decide. Their duty is to apply the laws as these are written.

- But laws include, under the doctrine of stare decisis, judicial interpretations of such laws as are applied to specific situations. Under this doctrine, Courts are “to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point.”

- And because judicial precedents are not always clearly delineated, they are quite often entangled in apparent inconsistencies or even in contradictions, prompting experts in the law to build up regarding such matters a large body of commentaries or annotations that, in themselves, often become part of legal writings upon which lawyers and judges draw materials for their theories or solutions in particular cases.

- Is this dishonest? No. Duncan Webb, writing for the International Bar Association puts it succinctly. When practicing lawyers (which include judges) write about the law, they effectively place their ideas, their language, and their work in the public domain, to be affirmed, adopted, criticized, or rejected. Being in the public domain, other lawyers can thus freely use these without fear of committing some wrong or incurring some liability. Thus:The tendency to copy in law is readily explicable. In law accuracy of words is everything. Legal

disputes often centre round the way in which obligations have been expressed in legal documents and how the facts of the real world fit the meaning of the words in which the obligation is contained. This, in conjunction with the risk-aversion of lawyers means that refuge will often be sought in articulations that have been tried and tested. In a sense therefore the community of lawyers have together contributed to this body of knowledge, language, and

expression which is common property and may be utilized, developed and bettered by anyone.- As Joyce C. George, whom Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno cites in her dissenting opinion,

observed in her Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook: A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution. Thus judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies to judicial writings intended to decide cases for two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary work and, more importantly, the purpose of the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.

- If the Court were to inquire into the issue of plagiarism respecting its past decisions from the time of CJ Arellano to the present, it is likely to discover that it has not on occasion acknowledged the originators of passages and views found in its decisions.

- This is not to say that the magistrates of our courts are mere copycats. They are not. Their decisions analyze the often conflicting facts of each case and sort out the relevant from the irrelevant

- The decisions then draw their apt conclusions regarding whether or not such laws, rulings, principles, or authorities apply to the particular cases before the Court.

- These efforts, reduced in writing, are the product of the judges’ creativity. It is here— actually the substance of their decisions—that their genius, originality, and honest labor can be found, of which they should be proud.

- In Vinuya , Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a way that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. On the whole, his work was original. He had but done an honest work.

- This rule should apply to practicing lawyers as well. Counsels for the petitioners, like all - The Court probably should not have entertained at all the charges of plagiarism against

Justice Del Castillo, coming from the losing party. But it is a case of first impression and petitioners, joined by some faculty members of the University of the Philippines school of law, have unfairly maligned him with the charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect for failing to attribute lifted passages

- True, Justice Del Castillo failed to attribute to the foreign authors materials that he lifted from their works and used in writing the decision for the Court in the Vinuya case. But, as the Court said, the evidence as found by its Ethics Committee shows that the attribution to these authors appeared in the beginning drafts of the decision.

- Unfortunately, as testified to by a highly qualified and experienced court-employed researcher, she accidentally deleted the same at the time she was cleaning up the final draft. The Court believed her since, among other reasons, she had no motive for omitting the attribution.

- In short, with the remaining attributions after the erroneous clean-up, the passages as it finally appeared in the Vinuya decision still showed on their face that the lifted ideas did not belong to Justice Del Castillo but to others. He did not pass them off as his own.

- the Court DENIES petitioners’ motion for reconsideration

In re VICENTE SOTTO

Facts:

- proceeding for contempt of our court against the respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto, who was required by their Court to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt to court for having issued a written statement in connection with the decision of this Court in In re Angel Parazo for contempt of court, which statement reads as follows:

As author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. 53.) interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Angel Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who now has to suffer 30 days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the source of a news published in his paper, I regret to say that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it is once more putting in evidence the incompetency of narrow mindedness o the majority of its members

I believe that the only remedy to put an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the Supreme Court. To his effect, I announce that one of the first measures, which as its objects the complete reorganization of the Supreme Cour

- the respondent does not deny having published the above quoted threat, and intimidation as well as false and calumnious charges against this Supreme Court. But he therein alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal

- Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its decision

- But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be published in the press, the respondent does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which was then and still is pending reconsideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Parazo

- He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members of Justices from eleven to seven, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo case, who according to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice.

- But the respondent also attacks the honesty and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the Justices of this Court into disrepute and degrading the administration of just

- To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately "so many blunders and injustices," would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice by this Court

- Respondent's assertion in his answer that "he made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and without intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal," if true may not exempt him from liability for contempt of court

- It is true that the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and the press must be protected, but license or abuse of liberty of the press and of the citizen should not be confused with liberty in its true sense.

- As important as the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the right of the citizen, is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary

- a clear case where it is necessary, in order to dispose of judicial business unhampered by publications which reasonably tend to impair the impartiality of verdicts, or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice, this court will not hesitate to exercise its undoubted power to punish for contempt.

- This Court must be permitted to proceed with the disposition if its business in an orderly manner free from outside interference obstructive of its constitutional functions.

- an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts, he may be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct

- we find the respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto guilty of contempt of. The respondent is also hereby required to appear and show cause to this Court why he should not be disbarred

- In his statement to the press as published in the Manila Times. respondent said "The Supreme Court can send me to jail, but it cannot close my mouth; "

- respondent misrepresents to the public the cause of the charge against him for contempt of court. He says that the cause is for criticizing the decision of this Court in said Parazo case in defense of the freedom of the press, when in truth and in fact he is charged with intending to interfere and influence the final disposition of said case through intimidation and false accusations against this Supreme Court.

GUERRERO vs. HON. ADRIANO VILLAMOR

Facts:

- Atty. Antonio Guerrero charges Judge Adriano Villamorwith serious misconduct, ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, misfeasance, malfeasance and neglect of duty for issuing an declaring the complainant and one George Carlos guilty of direct contempt.

- one Gloria Pascubillo filed a complaint against George Carlos for quieting of title. The case ended in a compromise agreement to deliver possession of the property in question to Pascubillo who, in turn, undertook to pay the former a sum

- Pascubillo, against Carlos for revival and enforcement of the judgment for qualified theft against Naval and her helpers. These criminal cases, like Civil Case No. B-0398, were raffled to the sala of Judge Villamor.

- Villamor rendered judgment declaring Naval to be the lawful owner/possessor.

- Villamor dismissed crim cases=> Naval and her helpers cannot be held liable for qualified theft for gathering coconuts on a piece of land of which Naval is the owner.

- Carlos appealed the decision. During the pendency of the appealudge Villamor issued an order granting execution which Carlos, in due time, challenged through a petition

- CA affirmed with modification the order of immediate execution issued by Villamor

- Carlos filed an AC against Villamor for having issued an illegal order and unjust decision

- Carlos filed with RTC a civil action for damages against Judge Villamor

- instead of answering the complaint, Villamor issued an order declaring Carlos and his lawyer, Antonio Guerrero guilty of direct contempt for "degrading the respect and dignity of the court through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language”

- Complainant Guerrero alleged that the respondent judge issued the contempt order

o as an incident of Criminal Case which have long been terminated

o without informing them of the charge

o without a hearing, or at least a show cause order to determine whether their alleged contemptuous utterances constitute direct or indirect contempt

o without following the prescription of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court on contempt.

Issue: WON Villamor guilty

Held: Not guilty of AC, but should have held hearing for contempt case against him

Ratio:

- Investigating Justice recommends the dismissal of the complaints against respondent judge. This Court agrees with this recommendation.

- With regard to the charge of malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, or misconduct, complainants have not established a prima-facie case against respondent judge. After a careful examination of the records of this case, the Court concurs with the findings of the investigating Justice that the acts or omission allegedly constituting any of these offenses have either not been spelled out with definite specificity, or the causal connection between the given act/omission and the resulting offense/s not logically demonstrated.

- The other charges, namely ignorance of the law and issuing an unjust judgment, deserve consideration, since the direct contempt order of the respondent judge, under the attending circumstances it was issued, appears to be clearly erroneous.

- The supposedly contemptuous language used in a pleading was not submitted to respondent, but filed in another court presided by another judge stationed in Cebu literally miles away from where respondent holds court in Leyte.

- For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive

- From the record before us we agree that respondent, in issuing his erroneous contempt order, was not moved by ill-will or by an impulse to do an injustice

- The fact that respondent did not accord complainants a hearing nor informed them beforehand of the charges relative to the contempt incident cannot, without more, be indicative of bad faith or malice.

- Bad faith, however, cannot be inferred from this particular error, per se. The assailed act of the judge appears to be a case of error of judgment not subject to disciplinary action.At most, the order of direct contempt which we nullified may only be considered as error of judgment for, which Judge Villamor may not be held criminally or civilly liable to the respondents

- While the quoted portion of the foregoing ruling speaks only of exemption from criminal or civil liability, there is no reason not to include from its reach administrative liability

- no legal basis nor convincing evidence, to support the proposition that the respondent judge, in issuing his controversial contempt order, acted in bad faith or with ill-will

IN RE: ALMACEN

Facts:- Almacen was asked to surrender his Lawyer’s Certificate of Title - He indicts SC, in his own phrase, as a tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to our

pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.

- His client’s, he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court’s unjust judgment,´ has become one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He ridicules the members of the Court, saying that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.´

- He then vows to argue the cause of his client ´in the people’s forum,´ so that people may know of the silent injustices committed by this court and that whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated.´ He ends his petition with a prayer that:“a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.”

- The genesis of this was a civil case entitled Yaptichay in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment against his client.

- Twenty days later on he moved for its reconsideration but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion.

- For lack of proof of service, µthe trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration, atty. Almacen filed a second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the RTC.

- Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals.Issue: WON guilty of disrespect of court

Held: Yes

Ratio:

- Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.

- As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may abridge this right.

- Nor is he professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen. Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further orders

SORIANO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

- Regional Trial Court found petitioner Ronald Soriano liable for the death of Isidrino Dalusong and convicted him of the crime of Homicide

- Decision was penned by Judge Rodolfo V. Toledano who sentenced Soriano to suffer imprisonment instead filed an Application for probation. The RTC granted probation for a period of three to six years. Among the several terms and conditions of probation was that Soriano indemnify the heirs of Dalusong

- Provincial State Prosecutor Fadera filed a Motion to Cancel Probation, on the ground that Soriano had failed to indemnify the heirs of Dalusong P98,560.00 contrary to Condition Number 11 of the Order of Probation.

- While Soriano opposed this motion, the Probation Office filed a Comment recommending that Soriano be allowed to continue with his probation but be required to submit a program of payment of his civil liability.

- The RTC denied the Motion to Cancel Probation, but ordered Soriano to submit within ten (10) days from notice his program of payment of the civil liability.

- A copy of the Order dated 20 June 1994 was received by Soriano’s counsel. Despite such receipt, no program of payment was submitted by Soriano, prompting the Probation Office to ask the RTC to require explanation from Soriano why he had not complied

- RTC: issued an Order, directing Soriano to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt- Instead of complying with this latest Order, Soriano filed a MOR, alleging that he had not

personally received a copy of Order. He also manifested therein that he was unemployed, dependent on his parents for support of his family

- RTC issued an Order ordering the detention of Soriano for ten (10) days for contempt of court and ordering that Soriano serve the sentence originally imposed.The RTC also took note of the fact that Soriano was able to hire two private counsels in his behalf, belying the claim of his financial hardship.

- Soriano filed a Petition before the Court of Appeals, alleging that Judge Toledano committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner in contempt of court and in revoking the probation order

- CA: Soriano was declared in contempt of court not because he was not financially capable of paying his civil liability, but because of his contumacious failure to comply with the RTC Orders

Issue: WON Soriano in contempt

Held: Contempt but should have had day in court

Ratio:

- There was no question that counsel for Soriano hadreceived a copy of the 20 June 1994 Order requiring Soriano to submit his program of payment, and it is well settled that notice to counsel is notice to the party himself.

- Nor did Soriano’s supposed financial incapacity excuse him from not complying with the RTC Orders, as he could have at the very least filed a manifestation with the Court that he was not yet in a position to settle the obligation.

- Soriano, in his present petition, argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that there was a deliberate refusal on his part to comply with its Orders; and in revoking the probation order for failure to satisfy the civil liability

- this Court rendered judgment holding that the revocation of Soriano’s probation was lawful and proper

- There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt and indirect contempt. The contempt charged against Soriano is properly classified as indirect contempt, as it consists of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court

- Sec 3, Rule 71 of the ROC for the requisites prior to conviction of indirect contempt:

o a charge in writing to be filed

o an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court

o to be heard by himself or counsel

- RTC did notify Soriano in writing of the charge of indirect contempt. However, the third requisite laid down in Rule 71 was not complied with, as no hearing was ever conducted

- With respect to constructive contempts or those which are committed without the actual presence of the court, it is essential that a hearing be allowed and the contemner permitted, if he so desires, to interpose a defense to the charges

- In Soriano’s case, no hearing was ever set or held. Soriano should have been afforded the chance to prove his side by presenting evidence in his behalf in open court.

- However, the RTC denied Soriano the opportunity to adduce evidence in his behalf through a hearing, or at least explain his side or substantiate his defense.Instead, the RTC adjudged him guilty based on the bare assertions contained in the pleading he filed in response to the show cause order which is the 15 August 1994 Order of the RTC.

- Petition is granted. The Order dated 4 October 1994 is set aside insofar as it declared petitioner Ronald Soriano in contempt of court

LACUROM, vs. ATTY. ELLIS F.

Facts:

- This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom against respondent-spouses Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba

- Complainant charged respondents with violation of Rules 11.03,1 11.04,2 and 19.013 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

- Lacurom issued a Resolution reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration

o This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if it were the DARAB (

o HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE ! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x o The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and after a very questionable SHORT period

of time, came this STUNNING and SUDDEN REVERSALo Clearly, the RESOLUTION is an INSULT to the Judiciary and an ANACHRONISM in the Judicial

Process. Need we say more?o THIS ERROR IS STUPENDOUS and a real BONER. Where did the Honorable PAIRING JUDGE base

this conclusion? x x x This HORRENDOUS MISTAKE o Another HORRIBLE ERROR! Even an average Law Student knows that JURISDICTION is

determined by the averments of the COMPLAINT and not by the averments in the answer!

- In her Explanation, Comments and Answer, Velasco-Jacoba claimed that "His Honor knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case." Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any "conscious or deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the Honorable Court

- Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five days

- Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration order. She recounted that on her way out of the house for an afternoon hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba ("Jacoba") stopped her and said "O, pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na, baka mahuli” She signed the pleading handed to her without reading it, in "trusting blind faith" on her husband of 35 years with whom she "entrusted her whole life and futu

- Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty of contempt without conducting any hearing. She accused Judge Lacurom of harboring "a personal vendetta," ordering her imprisonment despite her status as "senior lady lawyer of the IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter, already a senior citizen, and a grandmother many times over."

- Judge Lacurom issued another order this time directing Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in contempt. Jacoba complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition, wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July 2001 motion.

- IBP Commissioner recommended the suspension- IBP Board of Governors adopted Recommendation, except for the length of suspension

which the IBP Board reduced to three months.

Issue: WON respondents’ liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Liable

Ratio:

- There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-Jacoba appears . By signing the 30 July 2001 motion, Velasco-Jacoba in effect certified that she had read it, she knew it to be meritorious, and it was not for the purpose of delaying the case.

- Velasco-Jacoba insists, however, that she signed the motion only because of her husband’s request but she did not know its contents beforehand. By Velasco-Jacoba’s own admission, therefore, she violated Sec 3 of Rule 7. This violation is an act of falsehood before the courts, which is a ground for subjecting her to disciplinary action

- We now consider the evidence as regards Jacoba. His name does not appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts the inadmissibility of Velasco-Jacoba’s statement pointing to him as the author of the motion.

- The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hooko his Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain a denial of his

wife’s account. Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating that he "trained his guns and fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental."

o we find Velasco-Jacoba’s version of the facts more plausible, for two reasons: (1) her reaction to the events was immediate and spontaneous, unlike Jacoba’s defense which was raised only after a considerable time had elapsed from the eruption of the controversy; (2) Jacoba filed a Manifestation praying that Judge Lacurom await the outcome of the petition for certiorari before deciding the contempt charge against him. This petition for certiorari anchors some of its arguments on the premise that the motion was, in fact, Jacoba’s handiwork

- Respondents nonetheless try to exculpate themselves by saying that every remark motion was warranted. We disagree

- Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration.

- Shortly after the filing of the 30 July 2001 motion but before its resolution, Jacoba assisted his client in instituting two administrative cases against Judge Lacurom

- Court’s attention is drawn to the fact that the timing of the filing of these administrative cases could very well raise the suspicion that the cases were intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom.

- Respondent spouses have both been the subject of administrative cases before this Court. In Administrative Case No. 2594, we suspended Jacoba from the practice of law for a period of six months

- WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.

MACEDA vs. HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

Facts:

- The issue in this petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order is whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judge's certification submitted to SC

- Bonifacio Sanz Maceda seeks the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: (1) the Order denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the SC filed by petitioner; and (2) the Order dated November 22, 1951 denying petitioner's MOR

- respondent Abiera of the Public Attorney's Office alleged that petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service

- Petitioner also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction

Issue: WON Ombudsman can hear AC case

Held: No

Ratio:

- There is nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State

- We agree with pet that in the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, violating of the doctrine of separation of powers.

- Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts

- Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination.

- The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint.

- should a judge, having been granted by this Court an extension of time to decide cases before him, report these cases in his certificate of service?

- As this question had not yet been raised with, much less resolved by, this Court. how could the Ombudsman resolve the present criminal complaint that requires the resolution of said question?

- where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.

- WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

MANILA PEST CONTROL vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Facts:

- it was alleged that respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission, through its referee, considered a complaint filed against it by the other respondent, Mario Abitria, for compensation submitted for decision after he and a physician had testified, petitioner's counsel having failed to appear at the hearing

- Then came, according to the petition, MOR, petitioner praying that he be allowed to present evidence on his behalf. It was denied in an order of April 4, 1967, as a decision had already been rendered against petitioner

- in such order that there was no plea in such MOR for such decision being set aside, as it was limited to seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

- MOR of the aforesaid order was filed with the averment that petitioner was not aware of any decision rendered in the case as no copy of the same had theretofore been furnished to its counsel

- After a denial of such MOR< , and a plea for execution on behalf of respondent Abitria, which was granted, the City Sheriff of Manila, likewise made a respondent, levied on petitioner's properties

- It is petitioner's contention that in the light of the above alleged infringement of procedural due process, the actuation of respondent Commission was either in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

- Court issued a resolution to this effect: "The respondents are required to file, within 10 days from notice hereof, an answer to the petition for prohibition; let temporary restraining order issue, effective immediately and until further orders from this Court."

- The answer of respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission and the later pleadings, revealed quite a different story.

- It is now quite clear that instead of being the offended party suffering from a legitimate grievance, its right to due process having been summarily disregarded, petitioner was not above resorting to every technicality the law affords to evade the performance of an obligation, which under the law it must fulfill, namely, to compensate for the serious and debilitating ailment of tuberculosis acquired in the course of employment by respondent Abitria.

- the recorded evidence, it appears that claimant was employed with the respondent since February 4, 1956, working six (6) days

- It was testified to by the claimant and his witnesses that in the place of his employment he was made to inhale dangerous fumes as the atmosphere was polluted with poisonous chemical dusts

- He was not extended any protective device and he was also made to lift heavy objects in the painting and soldering. Sometime in July, 1966 while the claimant was soldering [he] began to experience symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis

- According to the attending physician, he was admitted in the hospital ward as a hemoptic patient or one who is bleeding from the lungs. He was discharged from the Quezon Institute, but the illness was not yet arrested although there was stopping of the hemoptysis.

- The sole issue then, as accurately set forth in the above decision, was "to determine in this case WON there is sufficient or substantial evidence in support of the claim for disability compensation benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The evidence on record is crystal clear that the claimant had already substantially proven his case and all indications point that the illness of moderately advanced, pulmonary tuberculosis was service connected in view of his work as laborer

Issue: WON there was deprivation of due process

Held: None

Ratio:

- The petition was so worded that the employer's right to be heard appeared to have been disregarded. No further attention should be accorded such an alleged grievance. If

it did not introduce any evidence, it had itself solely to blame. No fault could be attributed to respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission.

- Petitioner would make much however of the allegation that, as shown in the answer of respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission, the decision was sent to a certain Attorney Manuel Camacho but care of petitioner's counsel, Attorney Manuel Corpuz.

- Petitioner would emphasize that the one "officially furnished" with a copy of such decision was not its counsel, who was without any connection with the aforesaid Attorney Camacho.

- It would conclude, therefore, that it had not received a copy of a decision which could not thereafter reach the stage of finality calling for a writ of execution.

- This contention was squarely met in the reply-memorandum of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Why it happened thus was explained in an affidavit of one of its employees, a certain Gerardo Guzman, included therein.

- Mr. Guzman, he went to the office of Atty. Corpuz, on March 10, 1967 to deliver a copy of the decision, but Atty. Corpuz refused to receive the said decision alleging that he was no longer handling the case. Atty. Corpuz, instead instructed Mr. Guzman to deliver the said decision to Atty. Camacho since it was already Atty, Camacho who was handling the case,

- after the Counsel for Petitioner refused to receive the copy of said decision, he is now impugning the delivery of said decision to Atty. Camacho and is denying knowledge of it when in fact and truth the delivery of said decision to Atty. Camacho was made per his instruction to Mr. Guzman

- He would have this Court believe that the reply-memorandum is contradicted by what appeared in respondents' answer, where it was stated that a copy of the decision was received, not by him but by the law office of a certain Attorney Camacho.

- Under the above circumstances, no due process question arose. What was done satisfied such a constitutional requirement.

- An effort was made to serve petitioner with a copy of the decision; that such effort failed was attributable to the conduct of its own counsel.

- No benefit would have accrued to respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission. It was merely performing its official function. Certainly, it could be expected to see to it that the law's beneficiaries were not inconvenienced, much less frustrated, by its failure to follow the regular procedure prescribed

- Petitioner, and petitioner alone, could be expected to furnish such a cause. Who would benefit thereby? The answer cannot be in doubt. Through such circumstance, wether intended or otherwise, a basis was laid for at least a delay of the fulfillment of a just claim. For it is to be noted that there is no, as there could not be any, valid ground for denying compensation to respondent Abitria o

- It is quite revealing that in not one of the pleadings filed by petitioner did it ever indicate how it could validly avoid its liability under the Workmen's Compensation Commission which disclosed that the ailment suffered by respondent Abitria while in its employment was indeed compensable

- The unseemly conduct, under the above circumstances disclosed, of petitioner's counsel, Attorney Manuel A. Corpuz calls for words of reproof.

- this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is denied. With treble costs against petitioner to be paid by his counsel, Attorney Manuel A. Corpuz.

SAA vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:

- Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida. Saa stated that Atty. Venida’s act of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted unethical practice

- we issued the resolution requiring Atty. Venida to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt

- Atty. Venida also added that he was merely performing his duty as counsel of Saa’s adversaries

- Commissioner George S. Briones recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. It found no evidence that the two cases filed by Atty. Venida against Saa were acts of oppression or unethical practice.

- The Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the investigating commissioner’s report and dismissed the complaint

- Saa now questions the resolution of the IBP in this petition for certiorari. He ascribes grave abuse of discretion to the IBP when it adopted and affirmed the report of the investigating commissioner dismissing his complaint. According to him, the investigating commissioner’s report did not at all mention the dismissal even if the existence of both cases was admitted by the parties.

Issue: WON there was garve abuse of discretion on part of IBP

Held: None

Ratio:

- Grave abuse of discretion refers to a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment by reason of passion or personal hostility as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction

- There was no grave abuse of discretion in this case. There was in fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Venida. Without convincing proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions, the findings of the IBP stand.

- we strongly disapprove of Atty. Venida’s blatant refusal to comply with various court directives. As a lawyer, he had the responsibility to follow legal orders and processes. Yet, he disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics when he filed only a partial comment on January 26, 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so in the February 17, 1992 resolution. Worse, he filed his complete comment only on June 14, 1995 or a little over three years after due date

- Yet again, Atty. Venida failed to file a memorandum within the period required in our May 17, 2004 resolution. Despite the 30-day deadline to file his memorandum, he still did not comply. As if taunting authority, he continually ignored our directives

- Atty. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. But tried to exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy workload

- Nevertheless, his apologies notwithstanding, the petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The charge of oppressive or unethical behavior against respondent is dismissed. However, for violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the lawyer’s oath, Atty. Freddie A. Venida is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year

PLUS BUILDERS, INC vs.ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR

Facts:

- Before us is a MOR of our Decision, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.

- decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners

- Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice

- Resp duly filed a MOR, appealing to the Court praying that the penalty of suspension of two years be reduced to mere reprimand or admonition

- Resp maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution but were based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years

- He believes that the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of de Guzman, et. al.He avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled

- Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized practice of law, he humbly submits that there was actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same

- Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates that he does not deserve the penalty of two years’ suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in character, honesty, and probity

Issue: WON to lessen his punishment

Held: Lessen

Ratio:

- resp’s acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated.

- in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be

performed at the expense of truth and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case

- Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be countenanced, as respondent must have realized with the sanction he received from this Court.

- However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondent’s length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondent’s advanced age, among other things, which have varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.

- Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondent’s motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, we are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him.

- We find the suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. UY TENG PIAO

Facts:

- CFI rendered a judgment in favor of the PNB and against Uy Teng Piao in civil case => court ordered the def to deposit said amount with the clerk within 3 months from the date of the judgment

- Uy Teng Piao failed to comply with the order of the court, and the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the two parcels of land at public auction

- PNB secured from Uy Teng Piao a waiver of his right to redeem the property described, and on the same date the bank sold said property to Mariano Santos

- Evidently the other parcel, was subsequently resold by the bank because the account of the defendant was credited with the sum of P11,300. In other words, the bank credited the defendant with the full amount realized by it when it resold the two parcels of land.

- bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance of P11,574.33,- Def alleged as a special defense that he waived his right to redeem the land described

in consideration of an understanding between him and the bank that the bank would not collect from him the balance of the judgment. It was on this ground that the trial court absolved the defendant from the complaint.

- Def has failed to prove any valid agreement on the part of the bank not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment.

Issue: WON attorney should appear in case

Held: Depends

Ratio:

- asked on cross-examination if Pecson was not in Iloilo at the time of the execution of def's waiver of his right to redeem, the defendant answered that he did not know.One of the attorneys for the plaintiff testified that the defendant renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land but bank ought to have presented Pecson as a witness, or his deposition, if he was not residing in Manila at the time of the trial.

- With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, we should like to observe that although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active management of the case

- There is no mention in Exhibit 1 as to such an agreement on the part of the bank. Exhibit 1 relates only to the land in Calle Ronquillo.

- If Pecson had made any such agreement as the defendant claims, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have required the defendant to waive his right to redeem both

parcels of land, and that the defendant, a Chinese business man, would have insisted upon some evidence of the agreement in writing.

- It appears to us that the defendant waived his right to redeem the land in Calle Ronquillo, because a friend of his wished to purchase it and was willing to pay therefor

- it be conceded that there was such an understanding between Pecson and the defendant as the latter claims, it is not shown that Pecson was authorized to make any such agreement for the bank.

- Only the board of directors or the persons empowered by the board of directors could bind the bank by such an agreement.

- The fact that the bank after having bought the land for P1,000 resold it at the instance of the defendant for P8,600 and credited the defendant with the full amount of the resale was a sufficient consideration for the execution of defendant's waiver of his right to redeem.

- decision appealed from is reversed, and the defendant is condemned to pay the plaintiff the sum of P11,574.

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC vs. HON. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ

Facts:

- Union of Filipro Employees, and petitioner Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia intensified the intermittent pickets they had been conducting since June 17, 1987 in front of the Padre Faura

- They constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set up a kitchen and littered the place with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and sanitation. They waved their red streamers and placards with slogans, and took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loud speakers.

- These acts were done even after their leaders had been received by Justices Pedro L. Yap and Marcelo B. Fernan as Chairmen of the Divisions where their cases are pending, and Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, had been called in order that the pickets might be informed that the demonstration must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the Court

- Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring Messrs. Tony Avelino. Lito Payabyab union leaders of respondent Union of Filipro Employees in the Nestle case and their counsel of recordto appear before the Court and then and there to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held in contempt of court.

- Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court for the above-described acts, together with an assurance that they will not be repeated.

- Atty. Espinas further stated that he had explained to the picketers that any delay in the resolution of their cases is usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and that the Supreme Court has always remained steadfast in its role

Issue: WON to be held in contempt

Held: not in contempt

Ratio:

- We accept the apologies offered by the respondents and at this time, forego the imposition of the sanction warranted by the contemptuous acts described

- The liberal stance taken by this Court in these cases as well as in the earlier caseshould not, however, be considered in any other light than an acknowledgment of the euphoria apparently resulting from the rediscovery of a long-repressed freedom.

- The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it.

- The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free governments. However, such right, natural and inherent though it may be, has never been invoked to shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the conduct of courts

- The aforecited acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the dignity of this Court, but equality a violation of the above-stated right of the adverse parties and the citizenry at large.

- We realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They are not aware that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt of court.

- The duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas,

- WHEREFORE, the contempt charges against herein respondents are DISMISSED

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE vs. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA

Facts:

- March 2001, the KBP, an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country, sent a letter requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial

- Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the instant petition,3 submitting the following exegesis:

- the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also serve the dual purpose of ensuring the desired transparency in the administration of justice in order to disabuse the minds of the supporters of the past regime of any and all unfounded notions, or ill-perceived attempts on the part of the present dispensation, to railroad the instant criminal cases against the Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada."4

- Public interest, the petition further averred, should be evident bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting the nation.

- October 1991 resolution of this Court in a case for libel filed by then President Aquino.

While we take notice of the September 1990 report of the United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, still the current rule obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibits the presence of television cameras in criminal trials. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. A trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest for truth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated.

"Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding the broadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter access to the courtroom, since a television or news reporter has the same privilege, as the news reporter is not permitted to bring his typewriter or printing press into the courtroom.

Experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting on witnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become nervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of court influences which might affect their testimony'The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public.

Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant's right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice, and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of court hearings for news

purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper.

Issue: WON to allow media coverage of trial

Held: No

Ratio:

- The Court, just recently, has taken judicial notice of the enormous effect of media in stirring public sentience during the impeachment trial, a partly judicial and partly political exercise, indeed the most-watched program in the boob-tubes during those times, that would soon culminate in EDSA II.

- The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.

- With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a verdict that would come only after the presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure, whether open or subtle, in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper influence,8 and decreed by a judge with an unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or passions.

- Even while it may be difficult to quantify the influence, or pressure that media can bring to bear on them directly and through the shaping of public opinion, it is a fact, nonetheless, that, indeed, it does so in so many ways and in varying degrees.

- An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance.

- The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public and in

acquainting the public with the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process 17 which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. Justice Clark thusly pronounced

while a maximum freedom must be allowed the press in carrying out the important function of informing the public in a democratic society, its exercise must necessarily be subject to the maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process.

- The IBP expressed its own concern on the live television and radio coverage of the criminal trials of Mr. Estrada; to paraphrase:

Live television and radio coverage can negate the rule on exclusion of witnesses during the hearings intended to assure a fair trial; at stake in the criminal trial is not only the life and liberty of the accused but the very credibility of the Philippine criminal justice system, and live television and radio coverage of the trial could allow the "hooting throng" to arrogate unto themselves the task of judging the guilt of the accused, such that the verdict of the court will be acceptable only if popular; and live television and radio coverage of the trial will not subserve the ends of justice but will only pander to the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers.

- The sad reality is that the criminal cases presently involved are of great dimensions so involving as they do a former President of the Republic.

- It is undeniable that these cases have twice become the nation's focal points in the two conflicting phenomena of EDSA II and EDSA III where the magnitude of the events has left a still divided nation.

- Must these events be invited anew and risk the relative stability that has thus far been achieved? The transcendental events in our midst do not allow us to turn a blind eye to yet another possible extraordinary case of mass action being allowed to now creep into even the business of the courts in the dispensation of justice under a rule of law

- Unlike other government offices, courts do not express the popular will of the people in any sense which, instead, are tasked to only adjudicate justiciable controversies on the basis of what alone is submitted before them

- A trial is not a free trade of ideas, Nor is a competing market of thoughts the known test of truth in a courtroom.28

CRUZ vs. FRANCISCO G. H. SALVA

Facts:

- petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by Cruz against Salva, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Pasay City, to restrain him from continuing with the preliminary investigation in connection with the killing of Manuel Monroy

- CFI found Oscar Castelo et al guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced them to death. It seems that pending appeal, the late President Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case.

- Counsel for Oscar Castelo wrote to Salva to conduct a reinvestigation of the case presumably on the basis of the affidavits and confessions.

- petitioner Cruz was subpoenaed by respondent to appear at his office. The connection, if any, that petitioner Cruz had with the preliminary investigation being conducted by respondent Salva and his committee was that affidavits and confessions sent to Salva by the Chief, Philippine Constabulary, and which were being investigated, implicated petitioner Cruz, even picturing him as the instigator and mastermind

- in the present case, respondent has established a justification for his reinvestigation because according to him, in the original criminal case against Castelo, et al., one of the defendants named Salvador Realista y de Guzman was not included for the reason that he was arrested and was placed within the jurisdiction

- Now we come to the manner in which said investigation was conducted by the respondent.However, according to the petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the investigation was conducted not in respondent's office but in the session hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding, including members of the press.

- In other words, apparently with the permission of, if not the encouragement by the respondent, news photographers and newsmen had a filed day. Not only this, but in the course of the investigation, as shown by the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during said investigation, on two occasions, the first, after Oscar Caymo had concluded his testimony respondent Salva, addressing the newspapermen

Issue: WON Salva violated CPR

Held: Yes

Ratio:

- Why respondent was willing to abdicate and renounce his right and prerogative to make and address the questions to the witnesses under investigation, in favor of the members of the press, is difficult for us to understand, unless he, respondent, wanted to curry favor with the press and publicize his investigation as much as possible.

- Fortunately, the gentlemen of the press to whom he accorded such unusual privilege and favor appeared to have wisely and prudently declined the offer and did not ask questions, this according to the transcript now before us.

- the newspapers certainly played up and gave wide publicity to what took place during the investigation, and this involved headlines and extensive recitals, narrations of and comments on the testimonies given by the witnesses

- It seemed as though the criminal responsibility for the killing of Manuel Monroywas being retried and redetermined in the press, and all with the apparent place and complaisance of respondent.

- the members of this Court were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such publicity and sensationalism, all of which may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva

- Considering the conclusion arrived at by us, respondent Francisco G. H. Salva is hereby publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation, which we consider and find to be contempt of court; and, furthermore, he is warned that a repetition of the same would meet with a more severe disciplinary action

Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Melencio L. Mauricio

FACTS:- This is a disbarment case against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as

“Batas Mauricio” by Foodsphere, Inc. - Complainant under the brand name “CDO after a certain Alberto Cordero

purportedly bought a can of CDO Liver spread discovering a colony of worms in it.- He filed a lawsuit and asked CDO to pay Php150,000 on a conciliation done by BFAD but

CDO refused and instead offered to pay the actual medical and incidental expenses of Mr. Cordero.

- He brought the matter to the media where Atty Mauricio threatened CDO that he would publish and air in his TV and Radio programs the re the said issue.

- After a KASUNDUAN was made between Atty Maurcio as witness and the Corderos of a money settlement of Php 50,000 including placing paid advertisements in the tabloids and television program where Atty.Mauricio is working, respondent (Mauricio) still not satisfied with the offer threatened to proceed with the publication of the articles/columns.

- He then made several libellous write ups and comments about CDO. - Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent for Libeland Threatening

to Publish Libe. The complaints were pending at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint but Atty Mauticio didn’tstop from making write ups and comments about the matter andquestioned the integrity of the prosecutor’s office using coarse languages.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Mauricio has violated: Canon 11, Rule 1.01, Rule 13.02, CANON 8, Rule 8.01, CANON 7

Held: Yes

Ratio:- Melanio Mauricio violated the lawyer’s oath and has committed a breach of ethics of

the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility mentioned above and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three years effectiveupon his receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of thesame or similar acts will be dealt with more severely