Legal Profession - Finals 2

7/27/2019 Legal Profession - Finals 2

1/6

6. In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562

19 Jul

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to Surrender the Lawyers Certificate of Title to the

Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a tribunal peopled by people who are

calloused to our pleas for justice He also expressed strong words as against the judiciary like justice

is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence

of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by

reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a

minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this

petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon as he

regained confidence in the justice system.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts.

HELD:

YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.

RATIO:

It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen himself

because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth

and alleged injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused enough

damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a number offoreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and references. Between

disbarment and suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until

further orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of

law.

7. Enrique Zaldivar vs Raul Gonzalez

On June 25, 2012

166 SCRA 316 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language Duty of a Lawyer

Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the

case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The

Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to

temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar.


2/6

Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar.

Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme

Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich and influential

persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get

his petition to be given due course.

Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez

to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true; that he was only

exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out

where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less

than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on Zaldivar and to

not embarrass the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.

HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the

exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily imply that the

justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the grossest kindof disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme

Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the country.

Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is

that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that

freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements

of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of

the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free

expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice.

Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owesduties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the

repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to

uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration

of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.

Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In the

case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme Court

approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.

The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.


3/6

8. Montecillo and del Mar vs Francisco Gica et al

On June 22, 2012

60 SCRA 234 Legal EthicsLawyers Duty to the Courts Contemptuous Language

Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo

and he successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their

counterclaim thus the lower court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.

Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same.

Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of

Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices knowingly rendered an unjust decision and

judgment has been rendered through negligence and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.

The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. Del Mar

then filed a second MFR where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to

why he should not be punished for contempt.

Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the President of the

Philippines asking the said justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment.

Del Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil

case was eventually dismissed by reason of a compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay

damages to the justices. Eventually, the CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.

The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA

decision as to the Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of del Mar as he

demanded from the Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him.

The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to why he should not bedisciplined. Del Mar in his explanation instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not

been convinced that human efforts in [pursuing the case] will be fruitless he would have continued

with the civil case against the CA justices. In his explanation, del Mar also intimated that even the

Supreme Court is part among the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice.

Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices but the judge who handled the case

dismissed the same.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer

of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem

and regard towards the court so essential to the proper administration of justice.

It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy

ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by

claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with

intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client.


4/6

Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.

9. PEOPLE v JARDIN

124 SCRA 167GUTIERREZ JR; August 17, 1983

NATURE

Criminal Procedure av2010 page 107 Prof. Rowena Daroy Morales

Petition for certiorari on decision of CFI Quezon dismissing the criminal cases against accused Demetrio

Jardin because his constitutional right tospeedy trial was allegedly violated.

FACTS

- The criminal prosecutions originated from a letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon

requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised

Penal Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of public funds thru falsification of public

documents on six counts. (1967)

- {This case is full of delaying tactics}

-PI 1: accused moved to postpone 4 times, and failed to appear every time.

- PI was nevertheless conducted. And the six criminal informations were filed in CFI.-

AR 1: accused moved to postpone 4 time, never appeared; counsel asked for reinvestigation on theground that the accused was not given the opportunity to present his defense during the preliminary

investigation. Court granted motion.-

PI 2: accused moved to postpone many times, failed still to appear. When he finally appeared with his

counsel, they asked for 15 days to file memorandum. The memorandum was never filed, so the

investigating fiscal filed a manifestation before the court that the records of these cases be returned and

the trial on the merits of the same be set.

- The court transferred the case to new branch of CFI Quezon without acting on manifestation.

Arraignment date was set.

-AR 2: more postponements at instance of accused; moved for reinvestigation again. Court granted.

-PI 3: reset because no show. Counsel then asked for 5 days to file written sworn statement of accused

as defense. No statement was submitted so the records of the case were returned to court. A date wasset for arraignment.

-AR 3: accused asked for postponement.

-Arraignment finally happened on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and asked fo rtrial to be

postponed. On postponed date, accused asked for another postponement.

- Oct 1970, accused and counsel were at trial; but no one appeared for prosecution, except for a state

witness. Counsel moved (orally) for dismissal, invoking accused right to a speedy trial. Court granted

motion and dismissed the cases.

ISSUES

1. WON accused can invoke right to speedy trial

2. WON this appeal places the accused in double jeopardy

HELD

1. NO- The respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases and in basing

the dismissal on the constitutional right of the accused to speedy trial.

-The right to a speedy trial means that the accused is free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive

delays, its salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be free from anxiety and

expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible


5/6

time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may

interpose.

-The delays in the prosecution of the offenses were all caused by the accused so he cannot invoke

constitutional right to speedy trial. By his own deliberate acts, he is deemed to have waived or

abandoned his right to a speedy trial2. NO

-The dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused by the respondent court on the ground that his

right to speedy trial had been violated was devoid of factual and legal basis.

-In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure to the benefit of an accused, the

following requisites must be present in the first prosecution:(a) a valid complaint or information;(b) a

competent court;(c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and(d) the defendant was acquitted, or

convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

-The last requisite is not present because the order of the CFI judge was null and void.

Dispositive

Petition granted. The criminal cases are reinstated and the proper regional trial court is ordered to

proceed with all deliberate speed in these cases.

10. De Bumanglag vs. Bumanglag

Facts: Esteban T. Bumanglad, the respondent, was found by the Court in its decision of September 24,

1973 guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for a period of

two (2) years;

Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration but the same were denied;

As a result of such denial, the respondent wrote a petition to the President of the Philippines that he

promulgate(s) a decree that the order of suspension by the Supreme Court be set aside and that your

humble self be allowed to become an active member of the New Society.

The respondent alleged in the same petition that he was deprived of due process of law;

The Clerk of Court, by way of an indorsement from the Assistant Executive Secretary, received a copy of

the petition and was requested to comment and/or appropriate action on the subject matter;

However, in a subsequent letter to the President the respondent retracted and acknowledged his non

observance of protocol of separation of powers;

In the end, the respondent asked for an apology from the members of the Honorable Court.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not respondent may be disciplined for gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution

in not observing the protocol of separation of power by asking the President to set aside by decree the

decision of the Court imposing suspension upon the respondent

(2) Whether or not a decision duly promulgated by the Supreme Court may be set aside by a Presidential

Decree

Held:


6/6

(1) Respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for gross ignorance of the law and of the

Constitution in having asked the President to set aside by decree the Court's decision which suspended

him for two years from the practice of law, with warning that the commission of any transgression in the

future of his oath and duties as a member of the bar will be severely dealt with.

(2) Since respondent has apologized for his "big mistake" and now appreciates that under the

fundamental principle of separation of powers enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, a

decision of this Court may not be set aside by the President, the Court is disposed to view his

misconduct and/or ignorance with liberality and will administer a reprimand with warning of severe

action on any future transgressions, considering respondent's unenviable record.

Documents

Legal Profession - Finals 2