From Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind [http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com]

JUSTICE VILLARAMA DECISIONS (JAN 2010 – NOV 2011)LEGAL ETHICS

Rey Vargas, et al. vs. Atty. Michael Ignes, et al., A.C. No. 8096, July 5, 2010.

Attorney;   engagement   of private counsel by GOCC.   In Phividec Industrial Authority v. Capitol Steel Corporation, we listed three (3) indispensable conditions before a GOCC can hire a private lawyer: (1) private counsel can only be hired in exceptional cases; (2) the GOCC must first secure the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be; and (3) the written concurrence of the COA must also be secured. Failure to comply with all three conditions would constitute appearance without authority. A lawyer appearing after his authority as counsel had expired is also appearance without authority.

BGen. (Ret.) Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 173057-74, September 20, 2010.

Judges; inhibition. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. Extrinsic evidence must further be presented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial. 

Gregorio Dimarucot y Garcia vs.. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183975,September 20, 2010.

Attorney; mistake binding on client. Petitioner cannot simply harp on the mistakes and negligence of his lawyer allegedly beset with personal problems and emotional depression. The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client. There are exceptions to this rule, such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application of the general rule results in the outright deprivation of one’s property or liberty through a technicality. However, in this case, we find no reason to exempt petitioner from the general rule. The admitted inability of his counsel to attend fully and ably to the prosecution of his appeal and other sorts of excuses should have prompted petitioner to

Page 1 of 4

From Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind [http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com]

JUSTICE VILLARAMA DECISIONS (JAN 2010 – NOV 2011)LEGAL ETHICS

be more vigilant in protecting his rights and replace said counsel with a more competent lawyer. Instead, petitioner continued to allow his counsel to represent him on appeal and even up to this Court, apparently in the hope of moving this Court with a fervent plea for relaxation of the rules for reason of petitioner’s age and medical condition. Verily, diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients. 

Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. October 19, 2010.

Statement of UP Professors. 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. 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. The statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the Court. The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary 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 v. Executive Secretary. 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. Of public knowledge is the ongoing investigation

Page 2 of 4

From Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind [http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com]

JUSTICE VILLARAMA DECISIONS (JAN 2010 – NOV 2011)LEGAL ETHICS

precisely to determine the truth of such allegations. More importantly, 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 UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the Vinuya decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken asattorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gregorio B. Saddi, A.M. No. P-10-2818, November 15, 2010.

Court personnel; gross dishonesty. Saddi’s failure to turn over up to this time the full amount of his collections and to adequately explain and present evidence thereon constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds. The delayed remittance of his cash collections and failure to submit monthly reports of court funds he received constitute gross neglect of duty. Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.

National Power Corporation, represented its President Cyril Del Callar vs. Judge Santos B. Adiong, Regional Trial Court, BR. 8, Marawi City, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060. July 27, 2011

Judge; gross ignorance of the law.   Respondent Judge failed to conduct a pre-trial conference contrary to elementary rules of procedure which he should have known all too well considering his long years of service in the bench. Such ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty. As to the allegations of poor

Page 3 of 4

From Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind [http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com]

JUSTICE VILLARAMA DECISIONS (JAN 2010 – NOV 2011)LEGAL ETHICS

judgment and gross ignorance of basic legal principles in granting the motions for execution pending appeal for flimsy and unsupported reasons, the particular reasons relied upon by respondent judge for issuing the writ of execution pending appeal are so unreliably weak and feeble that it highlights the lack of knowledge of respondent judge with regard to the proper appreciation of arguments. Dire financial conditions of the plaintiffs supported by mere self-serving statements as “good reason” for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal does not stand on solid footing. It does not even stand on its own.

Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.

Attorney; grave misconduct. Respondent attorney was found to have violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending money to her through the use of documents and false representations and by taking advantage of her education and complainant’s ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan to respondent were it not for respondent’s misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and that complainant could register the “open” deed of sale if respondent fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has eroded not only complainant’s perception of the legal profession but the public’s perception as well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may be disciplined. 

Page 4 of 4