legal cases digested with highlight

8/19/2019 Legal Cases Digested with Highlight

1/120


2/120


3/120


4/120


5/120


6/120

6· Payment of Docket Fees in Election

Cases

Enojas v. Judge Gacott

Facts: Respondent Judge dismissed an election

case on non-payment of docket fees although the

case was previously admitted and was led

properly by the original Judge whom Judge

replaced !acott issued the dismissal order citing

"anchester vs #$: %a case is deemed commencedonly upon payment of proper docket fees& 'n

respondent(s opinion) the re*uired fees had not yet

been paid hence the complainant(s charges of

gross ignorance of the law against said respondent

+o, a case is commenced upon payment of docket

fees

eld: .lection protest was properly led /riginal

0udge already made an order that) from the deposit

given by the protestant for the necessary

e1penses) an amount shall be allocated for the

payment of the re*uired fees #ourt also held thatthe "anchester ruling does not apply to election

cases 2he ling fee in an election case is 1ed and

the claim for damages is merely ancillary and not

determinative of the court(s 0urisdiction


7/120

Respondent 0udge was in utter disregard of

established rules as he was duty bound to adhere

to e cannot feign ignorance thereof as the #ode

of Judicial .thics re*uires him /ne of the principalduties of a 0udge is to be abreast with law and

0urisprudence) and respondent failed to meet said

e1pectations


8/120

3· Granting of Bail

Tolentino v. Judge Camano

Facts: Respondent Judge granted bail while pendingthe holding of a preliminary investigation 2he

defense moved to *uash the information on the

absence of a preliminary investigation Respondent

Judge then ordered the state prosecutor to conduct

as such 2he investigation pending) respondent

granted bail in favor of the defendant after thecomplainant failed to appear and present evidence

in hearings despite notices #omplainant then

accused respondent of denying the prosecution the

chance to present evidence4 that bail should not

have been granted ence the charges of

incompetence and grave abuse against

respondent

+o, respondent 0udge manifested incompetence

or abuse of discretion in his actions

eld: ,o denial of due process 't was unnecessary

to hold a hearing so that the prosecution couldpresent evidence since a preliminary investigation

had been ordered $t that point) bail was still a

matter of right "oreover) complainant failed to

appear and present evidence several times


9/120


10/120

7· Issuance of an rder of !elease

"antiago vs. Judge Jovellanos# "anc$e% vs.

Judge Jovellanos

&.'. (o. 'TJ)**)+,-. &ugust +/ ,***

Facts: Jesusa 8antiago and "argarita 8anche9 were

complainants in two dierent criminal cases 2he

suspects in the criminal cases have been caught

and detained owever) both suspects were

released by order of respondent Judge Jovellanos#omplainants *uestioned the orders of release)

alleging that the re*uirements for the bailbond had

not been fullled4 that respondent had no

0urisdiction to order the release

+o, re*uirements for bailbond had been fullled4

respondent had 0urisdiction to order the release of

the suspects

eld: 2here are two defects in the /rders for

Release by respondent 0udge: detainees had not

registered the bailbond in accordance with the

Rules of #riminal rocedure4 and Jovellanos did nothave 0urisdiction to order the release of the

detainees #riminal rocedure provide that when a

suspect is arrested outside the area where his case

is pending) he may either apply for bail with the


11/120

court where his case is pending or with any R2# in

the province) city) or municipality 'f an R2# 0udge is

not available) he may apply for bail with any "2#

or "#2# in the place where he was arrested Judge Jovellanos entertained motions for bail

and ordered release for suspects whose cases were

not pending in his court) nor were they arrested

within his 0urisdiction ;nfamiliarity with the Rules

of #ourt is a sign of incompetence which goes

against the #ode of Judicial #onduct Judge Jovellanos was suspended for < year without pay

issued and a warning


12/120

=· Grant of a 'otion for !econsideration

0ucas v. Judge Fa1ros

Facts : #omplainant alleges that Judge Fabrosgranted the plainti(s motion for reconsideration

after the case had been dismissed4 that under

8ection c? of the Rules of 8ummary rocedure) a

motion for reconsideration is prohibited @ut

respondent 0udge violated such rule and granted

the motion for reconsideration Respondent 0udgeordered the revival of the case out of malice with

intent to cause in0ury to complainant) thus

charging respondent 0udge with gross ignorance of

the law and grave abuse of discretion

+o, respondent 0udge was ignorant of the law and

manifested grave abuse of discretion

eld: $s a rule) a motion for reconsideration is a

prohibited pleading under 8ection


13/120

such order is not the prohibited pleading

contemplated under 8ection c? of the present

Rule on 8ummary rocedure Respondent 0udge

committed no grave abuse of discretion nor guiltyof ignorance of the law thusA


14/120


15/120

ignorance Judge Dirios was ned in the amount of

h E)BBB and issued a stern warning


16/120


17/120

the interpretation of laws and procedural rules

Judge uiro9 was reprimanded and given a stern

warning


18/120


19/120


20/120


21/120

suspended from service for 6 months without pay

and ordered to pay a h GB)BBB ne


22/120


23/120


24/120


25/120


26/120


27/120

eye on the performance and conduct of court

personnel under his immediate supervision

'n the case of Judge Fernando Agdamag)

the #ourt stated a 0udge(s responsibilities includebeing an eective manager of the court and its

personnel $ delay of three years in the

transmission of court records is ine1cusable


28/120

!" Im#artiality and Im#ro#riety o$ a Judge

Issuance of Conicting Orders

Daniel = "u2rema Dumo v. Judge !omeo ;.Pere%

&.'. (o. 'TJ)**)+,>, January ,*/ ,***

Facts: Respondent "2# Judge issued a +rit of

.1ecution to enforce the decision of a case

involving *uieting of title and recovery of ownership of real property @ut said writ was

returned unsatised as complainants were the

actual owners and occupants of the property

Respondent Judge ordered) stating that

complainants shall not be aected by said writ

Cespite such order) he issued a +rit of ossession

in favor of the original plainti) .spinas) who used

+rit of ossession against the herein complainants

and e0ected them from their property

+o,: Respondent Judge) in issuing conNicting

orders) showed patent partiality over .spinas

eld: $s a municipal trial court 0udge) he had no

0urisdiction over the action for *uieting of title and

recovery of ownership led by .spinas) as such

cases fall within the e1clusive 0urisdiction of R2#s


29/120


30/120

+. 0eo2oldo G. Dacera/ Jr. vs. Judge Teodoro

&. Di%on

Facts: Cacera was the complainant in a case of ualied 2heft) led in the R2# of !eneral 8antos

#ity where Judge Ci9on presided 2he prosecutor

later led a "otion to Cismiss because Cacera had

e1ecuted and signed an $5davit of Cesistance

from pursuing the prosecution Cacera) however)

opposed the "otion to Cismiss) alleging that JudgeCi9on had unduly inNuenced him to sign the

$5davit of Cesistance4 that he had not been fully

appraised of the conse*uences 2he 8# assigned

an $ssociate Justice of the #ourt of $ppeals to

investigate the matter

eld: 2he investigation did not nd conclusive

evidence that Judge Ci9on was personally biased

Respondent 0udge did not actually dismiss the case

upon motion of the prosecutor and even voluntarily

inhibited himself upon motion of Cacera to

dis*ualify him 'nvestigation) however) did reveal

that Ci9on made telephone calls to Cacera andeven had discussions with him inside his chambers

in order to verify the truth about the $5davit of

Cesistance $ 0udge is not only re*uired to be

impartial4 he must also appear to be impartial


31/120

Fraterni9ing with litigants tarnishes this

appearance) making respondent(s acts less than

circumspect e should have strayed from

impropriety and endeavored to distance himself acts liable to create an impression of indecorum

Respondent Judge was admonished to refrain from

making calls to any parties-litigant andAor counsel

with cases pending in his sala and was sternly

warned


32/120

,*. 4illiam !. &dan vs. Judge &nita &1ucejo)

0u%ano

Facts: $dan was the complainant in cases of !rave/ral Cefamation) tried and decided by Judge

Du9ano of the "#2# of "isamis /ccidental

Respondent 0udge convicted the accused and

sentenced them accordingly ;pon "otion for

Reconsideration) however) respondent 0udge

reversed her decision and rendered a 0udgementfor ac*uittal $dan *uestioned the reversal of the

conviction) alleging that Judge Du9ano had modied

her 0udgment because she had conducted a

personal ocular inspection of the place where the

crime was committed without the presence of the

parties involved

eld: $n e1-parte ocular inspection without notice

nor presence of the parties) and after the case had

already been decided) was highly improper 8he

should have ordered the reopening of the trial with

due notice to the parties) whose participation is

essential Judge(s actions were highly improper asshe admitted additional evidence without giving

the prosecution a chance to ob0ect to its

introduction or controvert the same Furthermore)

respondent 0udge opened herself to partiality and


33/120


34/120

%" Gross &isconduct amounting to 'iolation o$ a

Constitutional (ig)t/ *erious/Grave &isconduct

&tty. (a2oleon". ;alen%uela v. Judge!eynaldo Bellosillo

Facts: 'n a @ GG case) Judge allegedly granted bail

to the accused despite not being accompanied and

represented by her counsel at that time and even

suggested that the latter should be replaced byanother counsel #omplainant led his ,otice of

+ithdrawal in conformity with his client(s decision)

#olapo) subse*uently ling the instant

administrative complaint against respondent Judge

e attached an $5davit e1ecuted by his client to

support his position owever) complainant failed

to present #olapo as witness as she was out of the

country during the hearing

eld: /n granting bail without the assistance of

counsel) the #ourt held that it was valid and

su5ciently based on the "anifestation led by $tty

alen9uela +ith regard to the alleged act of respondent Judge suggesting to the accused that

she should change her counsel) the evidence

adduced by the complainant was insu5cient 2he

a5davit issued by #olapo cannot be the basis of a


35/120

nding of guilt #omplainant(s failure to present his

principal witness) in the absence of other evidence)

cannot be given credence

2he employment or profession of a personis a property right within the constitutional

guaranty of due process Respondent 0udge cannot

be ad0udged guilty of the charges against him

without aording him a chance to confront the

witness) #olapo /therwise) his right to due process

would be infringed


36/120

,,. Erlinda "y vs. Danilo (or1erte

Facts: 'n a civil case against $ntoinetta !alve9)

complainant 8y obtained a writ of preliminaryattachment against all properties of the former

owever) she alleged that respondent Canilo

,orberte) 8heri of @ranch of the R2#) tipped o

!alve9 about the said writ4 that ,orberte actively

assisted !alve9 in the removal of her personal

property from the latterMs residence

eld: ,orberte was positively identied and seen

by the complainant 8y and G other witnesses 2he

oense of serious or grave misconduct refers to

such misconduct that shows the element of

corruption) clear intent to violate the law) or

Nagrant disregard of established rules 'n tipping

o and assisting !alve9) ,orberteMs actions are an

attempt to circumvent a valid court order

Respondent sheri should have refrained from any

actuations which may result in suspicion of

impropriety "embers of the 0udiciary are e1pected

to serve with the highest degree of responsibilityand e5ciency) and to conduct themselves with

propriety and decorum at all times ,orberte was

suspended for < month and issued a warning


37/120

,?. In !e@ Procedure ado2ted 1y Judge Daniel

0iangco

Facts: R2# Judge edro 8unga of ampangareceived information about irregularities in the

disposition of 0ueteng cases before the "2#s Judge

8unga discovered that of the EE 0ueteng cases led

in July) EI were assigned to the "2# of 8an

Fernando) presided by Judge Diangco Judge 8unga

demanded a written e1planation) and JudgeDiangco said that it has been his practice to

automatically take over all 0ueteng cases4 that the

detained accused can le motions for bail and the

same can be entertained immediately 'n other

words) because of the need for provisional liberty)

all 0ueteng cases are considered to be raOed to his

branch so he may entertain motions for bail) and

the accused can be released upon ling of the

bond

eld: Judge Diangco clearly violated 8upreme #ourt

#ircular ,o 3: L All cases +led ,it) t)e Court in

stations or grou#ings ,)ere t)ere are t,o or morebranc)es s)all be assigned or distributed to t)e

di-erent branc)es by ra.e" o case may be

assigned to any branc) ,it)out being ra.ed"L

2here is no connection at all between respondent(s


38/120

alleged desire to facilitate the release the accused

and his *uestionable act of retaining the records

2here is thus no need to retain the records and

consider them %raOed o& to his own sala 2he*uestioned acts of respondent Judge Diangco

constitute a clear breach of his duty as a 0udge

Respondent 0udge(s manner of automatically

assigning 0ueteng cases to its own branch casts

doubt on his integrity as a 0udge Judge Diangco

was suspended from service for 6 months withoutpay and issued a warning


39/120

GK eglect o$ Duty/Abuse o$ Aut)ority

Aenaida ". Beso v. Judge Juan Daguman

Facts: 'n a #omplaint-$5davit) Penaida 8 @eso

charged Judge Juan J Caguman) Jr with

solemni9ing marriage outside of his 0urisdiction and

of negligence in not retaining a copy nor

registering the marriage contract with the o5ce of

the Docal #ivil Registrar Respondent 0udge allegedthat the marriage was solemni9ed in #albayog #ity

though outside his territory was because of) among

others) the reasons:


40/120

$rticle GI of the Family #ode $ 0udge should

e1ercise e1tra care in ensuring that records of

cases and o5cial documents in his custody are

intact Records show that the loss was occasionedby carelessness on respondent Judge(s part


41/120

%0" Prom#t Dis#osition o$ Cases/ Inefciency/Abuse

o$ Aut)ority

"tate Prosecutor !omulo Tolentino vs. Judge(ilo 'alanyaon

Facts: Judge "alanyaon) presiding 0udge of an R2#

in #amarines 8ur) dismissed E separate criminal

cases for lack of evidence and also refused to issue

warrants of arrest due to lack of probable cause$cting 8tate rosecutor for #amarines 8ur Romulo

2olentino assailed the orders and refusal to issue

warrants alleging that Judge "alanyaon had

abused his authority and knowingly rendered

un0ust orders4 that several motions had been led

before respondent 0udge and have yet to be

resolved

'ssues: >


42/120

absence of malice) corrupt or improper

consideration are su5cient defenses protecting a

0udicial o5cer charged with ignorance of the law

and promulgation of an un0ust decision 8ince thereis no proof of grave abuse) charges were dismissed

by the #ourt

>G? H.8 2he motions were left unacted

upon despite pending for I to E months

Respondent should be aware of his duties as a

0udge ;nder Rule IBE of the #ode of Judicial#onduct) a 0udge shall dispose of the courtMs

business promptly and decide cases within the

re*uired periods .ven assuming that the various

motions led by the prosecutor were without merit)

the 0udge must nevertheless resolve on those

matters promptly by granting or denying them

Respondent 0udge was found guilty for his failure to

resolve pending motions andAor incidents and)

accordingly) a penalty of reprimand was imposed

upon him


43/120


44/120

#ourt asking for an e1tension @ut respondent did

not even attempt to do so $ heavy case load and

being a stroke victim are only mitigating) and not

e1onerating Judge "eteoro was ned GB)BBB withthe warning that a repetition of the same shall be

dealt with more severely


45/120

,. Dominga D. 3uillal)0an vs. Judge &licia 0.

Delos "antos

Facts: #omplainant uillal-Dan was the defendantin a Forcible .ntry case before Judge Celos 8antos

at Cavao del 8ur #omplainant alleges that

respondent 0udge failed to decide the case within

the mandatory IB-day period as provided by the

Rules on 8ummary rocedure Judge Celos 8antos

avers that she was on sick leave and thereforecould not be e1pected to decide upon the case

within the said period

eld: $ case of Forcible .ntry falls must be decided

within IB-days Respondent should have rendered

0udgment in the forcible entry case before she went

on leave Celay in the disposition of cases covered

by the Revised Rule on 8ummary rocedure

defeats the very purpose of said rule) which is the

e1peditious and ine1pensive determination of

cases Respondent appears to be remiss in her

duties as 0udge when she failed to render 0udgment

as mandated by the rules ;nder Rule IBE of the#ode of Judicial #onduct) she is re*uired to dispose

of the court(s business promptly and to decide

cases within the re*uired time frame Judge Celos

8antos was ned h


46/120


47/120

,-. Co1 C. Dela Cru% v. Judge !odolfo '.

"errano

Facts: #omplainant contends) among others) thatit took one >


48/120


49/120


50/120

IB Duty o$ Court 2m#loyees

'arta Bucatcat v. Edgar Bucatcat and Gene

Jaro

Facts: #omplainant @ucatcat charged her husband

.dgar @ucatcat and #ourt 'nterpreter of the 2hird

"2# of 8amar) !ene 8 Jaro) with

immorality #omplainant claims that respondents

are having an illicit relationship with each other"oreover) respondents allegedly have two >G?

children together and that respondent Jaro) at the

time of the ling of the letter-complaint) was

pregnant with their third child

eld: 2here is su5cient evidence to hold

respondents liable for immorality .very employee

of the 0udiciary should be an e1ample of integrity)

uprightness) and honesty and must e1hibit the

highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in

the performance of duties) but their personal and

private dealings with other people to preserve the

court(s good name and standing 2he image of acourt is mirrored in the conduct) o5cial and

otherwise) of the personnel who work thereat

Respondents were C'8"'88.C from service


51/120


52/120

IG· Im2artiality

!e@ In$i1ition of Judge Eddie !. !ojas ,,

"C!& ?*

Facts: $tty Ro0as was appointed a s 0udge and

inherited a case which he acted as prosecutor e

e1plained that his delay in inhibiting himself from

presiding on that case was because it was only

after the belated transcription of the stenographic

notes that he remembered that he handled thatcase e also says that the counsels did not ob0ect

and he never held %full-blown& hearings anyway

eld: Judges are prevented from trying cases

where they acted as counsel without the consent of

the parties) as mandated by the Rules of #ourt)

preventing not only conNict of interest) but also

appearance of impropriety $ 0udge should take no

part in a proceeding where his impartiality might

reasonably be *uestioned 2he prohibition does not

only cover hearings but all 0udicial acts


53/120

??. Carlito D. 0a%o v. Judge &ntonio ;. Tiong

Facts: Judge 2iong was accused of failing to inhibit

himself in a criminal case because he was relatedto the accused within the fourth degree of a5nity

Respondent 0udge claims he did so in the hopes

that his presence would allow the parties to settle

amicably

eld: $ 0udge should take no part in a proceedingwhere his impartiality might reasonably be

*uestioned $lso) Rule


54/120


55/120

complainant to delay the case for K years Judge

commended

?. Fe T. Bernardo v. Judge &melia &. Fa1ros

Facts: #omplainant accused respondent 0udge of

inaction in an unlawful detainer case for 3 monthswhen the rules on summary procedure call for a

decision in IB days Respondent does not deny the

inaction but says complainant has no standing as

she is only the attorney-in-fact of the plaintis to

the civil case

eld: Judges must decide cases e1peditiously)

especially in summary proceedings 8he should

either ask for additional time to decide or devise an

e5cient ling system to e1pedite decision Finally)

standing or personal interest of the complainant is

immaterial in administrative cases which involves

the public good


56/120


57/120

?. &tty. !aula &. "anc$e% v. Judge &ugustine

&. ;estil ,- "C!& +

Facts: #omplainant charged R2# Judge estil withfalsifying his monthly certicate of service by

stating that he has no pending case submitted for

decision or resolution4 that has gone beyond the

ninety day period allowed by law when in fact there

were numerous civil criminal cases which the

respondent failed to resolve within the said period

eld: Judges are mandated to decide cases

seasonably Judges who cannot comply with such

mandate should ask for additional time ,either the

proviso nor the fact that notes are to be

transcribed is a valid defense for not deciding

within the re*uired time 2he failure of a 0udge to

decide a case within the re*uired period is not

e1cusable and constitutes gross ine5ciency the

non-observance of said rule) and is ground for

administrative sanction


58/120

3!" Assisting in t)e *#eedy Administration o$

Justice

Eternal Gardens 'emorial Park Cor2orationvs. Court of &22eals ,? "C!& ,,

Facts: Judgment was rendered against the

petitioner ordering it to reconvey the cemetery to

the rightful owners Cespite the nal decision by

the 8upreme #ourt) petitioner was able to preventthe e1ecution for


59/120


60/120


61/120

the interest of his client $ motion to postpone trial

on the ground that counsel is unprepared shows

indierence and disregard of his client(s interest


62/120

45" False)ood//Dilatory Tactics

Ban 7ua H. Flores v. &tty. Enri8ue ". C$ua

?* "C!& >

Facts: #hua was charged with many oenses: that

he notari9ed a forged deed of sale4 that he caused

to be published an advertisement of a 8.# decision

in order to bring ridicule and shame upon a

corporation e has also been previouslyreprimanded for bribing a 0udge and for

consistently using dilatory tactics to prolong a

litigation

eld: e has thus violated Rules


63/120


64/120


65/120

>,. ;ictoriano P. !esurreccion v. &tty. Ciriaco

C. "ayson ?** "C!& +,

Facts: respondent was accused of havingappropriated the amount of G) EBBBBB)

representing the amount delivered by the

Resurreccion to the respondent as compensation or

settlement money of a case for homicide 8ayson

did not turn over the amount to his client) the

#omplainant in the criminal case) forcingResurreccion to pay the same amount

again 8ayson was later convicted for estafa

eld: 8ayson disbarred !ood moral character is

not only a condition precedent to admission to the

legal profession) but it must also remain e1tant inorder to maintain one(s good standing in that

e1clusive and honored fraternity $cts of moral

turpitude >ie done contrary to 0ustices) honesty

good morals? such as estafa or falsication render

one unt to be a member of the legal profession


66/120

43. &BH"E F &HT7!IT6

!osalia ;illaruel/ et al v. Gra2ilon/ et al

Facts: !rapilon was accused by


67/120

44. GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LA

Jesus Conducto vs. Judge Iluminado C.

'on%on

Facts: Respondent 0udge refused to suspend the

mayor due to criminal charges 2he 0udge opined

that an o5cial cannot be suspended for something

that has happened in a previous term 8ettled

0urisprudence says this only applies to

administrative) not criminal cases Respondent 0udge was subse*uently charged with gross

ignorance

eld: +hile 0udges should not be disciplined for

ine5ciency on account merely of occasional

mistakes or errors of 0udgment) it is imperative thatthey be conversant with basic legal principles as a

0udge should show more than 0ust cursory

ac*uaintance with the statutes and procedural

rules $lso) if the 0udge did act deliberately) he

violated #anon


68/120


69/120

4!. GROSS I""ORAL CON#$CT

Julieta B. (arag vs. &tty. Dominador '. (arag

Facts: $tty ,arag(s spouse led a petition for

disbarment in the '@ alleging that her husband

courted one of his students) later maintaining her

as a mistress and having children by her $tty

,arag claims that his wife was a possessive)

0ealous woman who abused him and led the

complaint out of spite '@ disbarred him) hence)this petition

eld: ,arag failed to prove his innocence because

he failed to refute the testimony given against him

't was proven that his actions were of public

knowledge and brought disrepute and suering tohis wife !ood moral character is a continuing

*ualication re*uired of every member of the

bar 2hus) when a lawyer fails to meet the

e1acting standard of moral integrity) the 8upreme

#ourt may withdraw his or her privilege to practice

law >#anons


70/120

under such scandalous or revolting circumstances

as to shock the common sense of decency $s a

lawyer) one must not only refrain from adulterous

relationships but must not behave in a way thatscandali9es the public


71/120

>. !emedios Ta2ucar vs. &tty. 0auro 0.

Ta2ucar

Facts: Respondent was previously dismissed as #F' 0udge for maintaining and cohabiting with his

mistress Cespite this) he later married the same

woman and had children with her e even made

statements displaying contempt for the 8# and

mocking the law and said court etitioner) his

lawful wife) led a letter-complaint for disbarmentagainst her husband '@ disbarred him

eld: Cisbarred $ 0udge is a visible representation

of the law and 0ustice) as an attorney $ttorney is

also invested with public trust and must ensure the

faith and condence of the public that 0ustice is

administered with dignity $ high degree of moral

integrity is e1pected of a lawyer in the community

where he resides 2he #ourt may disbar or

suspend a lawyer for misconduct whether in his

professional or private capacity 2he power to

disbar is only done in a clear case of misconduct

which seriously aects the standing of the lawyeras an o5cer of the court Teeping a mistress)

entering into another marriage while a prior one

subsists) as well as abandoning andAor mistreating

complainant and their children) show his disregard


72/120


73/120


74/120

>- >. Felicidad 0. ronce/ et al. v. Court of

&22eals/ et. al.

Facts: Curing a dispute over land) Flaminianoillegally took possession of the property in litigation

using abusive methods 8he was aided by her

husband) a lawyer 2he illegal entry took place

while the case was pending in the #$ while a writ

of preliminary in0unction was in force

eld: $tty Flaminiano(s acts of entering the

property without the consent of its occupants) in

contravention of the e1isting writ or preliminary

in0unction) and making utterances showing

disrespect for the law and this #ourt are

unbecoming of a member of the @ar $lthough he

says that they %peacefully& took over the property)

such %peaceful& take-over cannot 0ustify deance

of the writ of preliminary in0unction e has Nouted

his duties as a member of the legal profession

;nder the #ode of rofessional Responsibility) he is

prohibited from counseling or abetting %activities

aimed at deance of the law or at lesseningcondence in the legal system&


75/120

> + I'P!P!IET6

Flaviano B. Cortes v. Judge Emerito '.

&gcaoili

Facts: 'n a case of illegal logging) respondent

0udge dismissed the case and returned illegally cut

timber to the defendants because the search

warrant was invalid e was also seen in eating

and drinking in the company of said defendants)

and this supposedly inNuenced his decision $ssuch) he was charged with impropriety and gross

ignorance of the law

eld: Judge ned and suspended Respondent

erred in returning the sei9ed articles) as even

though the warrant was invalid) illegal articles>illegally cut lumber? are not returned to the

possessor Respondent also violated #anon G) Rule

GB< of the #ode of Judicial .thics S ie to avoid

impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety

.ven though it was not proven that he was

inNuenced by the defendants) he should not have

fraterni9ed with litigants who had a pending case

before him as it erodes public condence in the

integrity and independence of the 0udiciary


76/120

* >. Benjamin "ia 0ao vs. 7on. Felimon C.

&1elila III

Facts: in a family dispute over a parcel of land)respondent 0udge committed acts of forcible entry)

attempted to deny complainant of possession

despite a lease in the latter(s favor e also gave

rearms to his men in order to assault

complainant(s workers Respondent also Ned from

police when called in for *uestioning

eld: Respondent C'8"'88.C $ 0udge is the

visible representation of the law and the

embodiment of the people(s sense of 0ustice and

that) accordingly) he should constantly keep

himself away from any act of impropriety) not only

in the performance of his o5cial duties but also in

his everyday actuations ,o other position e1acts

a greater demand on moral righteousness and

uprightness of an individual than perhaps a seat in

the 0udiciary $ 0udge must be the rst to abide by

the law and to weave an e1ample for the others to

follow


77/120


78/120

eld: 2he #ourt held that the act of a person in

issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance

that he or she does not have su5cient funds in) orcredit with) the drawee bank for the payment of

the check in full upon its presentment) is a

manifestation of moral turpitude 'n #o v

@ernardino and Dao v "edel) we held that for

issuing worthless checks) a lawyer may be

sanctioned with one year(s suspension from thepractice of law) or a suspension of si1 months upon

partial payment of the obligation 'n the instant

case) however) herein respondent has) apparently

been found guilty by nal 0udgment of estafa thru

falsication of a commercial document) a crime

involving moral turpitude) for which he has been

indenitely suspended #onsidering that he had

previously committed a similarly fraudulent act)

and that this case likewise involves moral

turpitude) we are constrained to impose a more

severe penalty 'n fact) we have long held that

disbarment is the appropriate penalty for

conviction by nal 0udgment of a crime involvingmoral turpitude $s we said in 'n 2he "atter of

Cisbarment roceedings v ,arciso , Jaramillo)

%the review of respondentMs conviction no longer

rests upon us 2he 0udgment not only has become


79/120

nal but has been e1ecuted ,o elaborate

argument is necessary to hold the respondent

unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a

member of the bar 8u5ce it to say that) by hisconviction) the respondent has proved himself unt

to protect the administration of 0ustice&


80/120

G 8pouses /[email protected] 8 $tty '#2/R C.#'."@R.

$#-EI6E $pril G3) GBBE

Facts: $tty ictor Ceciembre was given veblank checks by 8pouses /lbes for security of a

loan $fter the loan was paid and a receipt issued)

$tty Ceciembre lled up four of the ve checks for

EB) BBB with dierent maturity date $ll checks

were dishonored 2hus) $tty Ceciembre Ned a case

for estafa against the spouses /lbes 2hisprompted the spouses /lbes to le a disbarment

case against $tty Ceciembre with the /5ce of the

@ar #ondant of this #ourt 'n the report)

#ommissioner Culay recommended that

respondent be suspended from the practice of law

for two years for violating Rule


81/120

circumscribed by inNe1ible norms of law and

ethics) and whose primary duty is the

advancement of the *uest for truth and 0ustice) for

which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader& @ytaking the lawyer(s oath) an attorney becomes a

guardian of truth and the rule of law) and an

indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial

administration of 0ustice Dawyers should act and

comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a

manner beyond reproach) in order to promote thepublic(s faith in the legal profession 't is also

glaringly clear that the #ode of rofessional

Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his

malevolent act of lling up the blank checks by

indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon

at all and despite respondent(s full knowledge that

the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had

already been paid is was a bra9en act of

falsication of a commercial document) resorted to

for his material gain

Ceception and other fraudulent acts are not merely

unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and

dishonorable4 they reveal a basic moral Naw 2hestandards of the legal profession are not satised

by conduct that merely enables one to escape the

penalties of criminal laws #onsidering the

depravity of the oense committed by respondent)


82/120

we nd the penalty recommended by the '@ of

suspension for two years from the practice of law

to be too mild is propensity for employing deceit

and misrepresentation is reprehensible is misuseof the lled-up checks that led to the detention of

one petitioner is loathsome 2hus) he is sentenced

suspended indenitely from the practice of law

eective immediately


83/120

I ,/R2+.82.R, ;,'.R8'2H) ',#) and @., $

,'#/D$8 vs $tty "$#$R'/ C $R;'DD/

$# ,o 66IG $ugust G) GBBE

Facts: $tty "acatrio C $r*uillo represented

opposing parties in one a case before the before

the ,ational Dabor Relations #ommission) Regional

$rbitration @ranch in 8an Fernando) Da ;nion

erein) complainants accuse $tty $r*uillo of

deceit) malpractice) gross misconduct andAorviolation of his oath as attorney by representing

conNicting interests 2he case was led with the

'@-#ommission on @ar Ciscipline which found $tty

$r*uillo guilty of the charge and recommended a

penalty of suspension for 6 months 2he governors

of the '@ increased the penalty for G years

'ssue: +hether or not the acts of $r*uillo merits his

suspension from the practice of law

eld: 2he #ode of rofessional Responsibility

re*uires lawyers to observe candor) fairness and

loyalty in all their dealings and transactions withtheir clients #orollary to this duty) lawyers shall

not represent conNicting interests) e1cept with all

the concerned clients( written consent) given after

a full disclosure of the facts +hen a lawyer


84/120

represents two or more opposing parties) there is a

conNict of interests) the e1istence of which is

determined by three separate tests: >


85/120


86/120

K R.: D.22.R C$2.C G< F.@R;$RH GBBE /F $22H

,/.D 8 8/RR.C$

$" ,o BE-I-BK-8# July GG) GBBE

Facts: $tty ,oel 8 8orreda wrote a letter

addressed to the #hief Justice over his frustrations

of the outcome of his cases decided by the

8upreme #ourt 2he letter contained derogatory

and malignant remarks which are highly insulting

2he #ourt accorded $tty 8orreda to e1plain)however) instead of appearing before the court) he

wrote another letter with insulting remarks as the

rst one 2he court was thus oended with his

remarks

'ssue: +hether or not $tty 8orreda can be held

guilty of contempt due to the remarks he has made

in his letters addressed to the court

eld: ;nfounded accusations or allegations or

words tending to embarrass the court or to bring it

into disrepute have no place in a pleading 2heir

employment serves no useful purpose /n thecontrary) they constitute direct contempt of court

or contempt in facie curiae and a violation of the

lawyer(s oath and a transgression of the #ode of

rofessional Responsibility $s o5cer of the court)


87/120

$tty 8orreda has the duty to uphold the dignity

and authority of the courts and to promote

condence in the fair administration of 0usticeUGKV

,o less must this be and with greater reasons inthe case of the country(s highest court) the

8upreme #ourt) as the last bulwark of 0ustice and

democracy

$tty 8orreda must be reminded that his rst duty is

not to his client but to the administration of 0ustice)

to which his client(s success is wholly subordinateis conduct ought to and must always be

scrupulously observant of law and ethics 2he use

of intemperate language and unkind ascription can

hardly be 0ustied nor can it have a place in the

dignity of 0udicial forum #ivility among members

of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that

must at no time be lost to it ence) $tty 8orreda

has transcended the permissible bounds of fair

comment and constructive criticism to the

detriment of the orderly administration of 0ustice

Free e1pression) after all) must not be used as a

vehicle to satisfy one(s irrational obsession to

demean) ridicule) degrade and even destroy this#ourt and its magistrates 2hus) $22H ,/.D 8

8/RR.C$ is found guilty both of contempt of court

and violation of the #ode of rofessional


88/120


89/120

E eirs of erman Rey) represented by $R$#.D'

da C. R/".R/ vs $tty enancio Reyes) Jr

$# ,o 6


90/120

years from the date of the #ompromise $greement)

R #redit .nterprises) 'nc still has not complied

with its obligation toward complainants ence)

complainants led a motion for issuance of writ ofe1ecution against R #redit .nterprises) 'nc for

such failure $tty Reyes led a motion for the case

was premature Dater he raised the issue that the

#ompromise $greement was not valid since it was

not signed by eronica !on9ales ence) the R2#

rued that the #ompromise as unenforceable 2hus)herein) complainants led this administrative case

against $tty enancio Reyes Jr charging him with

willful and intentional falsehood) in violation of his

oath as a member of the hilippine bar '@

investigating commissioner found him guilty of

violation of his oath

'ssue: +hether or not $tty enancio Reyes is

administratively liable

eld: Dawyers are indispensable instruments of

0ustice and peace ;pon taking their professional

oath) they become guardians of truth and the ruleof law erily) when they appear before a tribunal)

they act not merely as the parties( representatives

but) rst and foremost) as o5cers of the court

2hus) their duty to protect their clients( interests is


91/120

secondary to their obligation to assist in the

speedy and e5cient administration of 0ustice 'n

assailing the legality of the #ompromise

$greement) he claims good faith e maintains thathe should not be faulted for raising an allegedly

valid defense to protect his client(s interests 2he

records show) however) that his actions bear

hallmarks of dishonesty and doublespeak $tty

Reyes is one of negotiating panel in the

compromise agreement e impressed upon theparties and the trial 0udge that his clients were

bound to the #ompromise $greement 2hen)

suddenly and conveniently) he repudiated it by

falsely alleging that one of his clients had never

signed it 2rue) lawyers are obliged to present

every available remedy or defense to support the

cause of their clients owever) their delity to

their causes must always be made within the

parameters of law and ethics) never at the e1pense

of truth and 0ustice 'n #hoa v #hiongson this

principle was e1plained thus: %+hile a lawyer owes

absolute delity to the cause of his client) full

devotion to his genuine interest) and warm 9eal inthe maintenance and defense of his rights) as well

as the e1ertion of his utmost learning and ability)

he must do so only within the bounds of the law&


92/120

2hus) herein) $tty enancio Reyes) was ordered

suspended for < year


93/120

6 J.8;8 " F.RR.R vs $22H J/8. $DD$, "

[email protected]',

$# ,o 6E=B June G3) GBBE

Facts: Ferrer obtained the services of $tty 2ebelin

in a case against !lobal Dink as a result of a

vehicular accident through the falut of !lobal Dink(s

driver Ferrer paid $tty 2ebelin E) BBBBB as

acceptance fee and gave him all pertinent

documents owever) Ferrer led an administrativecase against $tty 2ebelin alleging that the said

lawyer abandoned his case owever) $tty 2ebelin

e1pressed his willingness to return the money and

denied having abandoned the case owever)

during the proceedings) herein Ferrer died $tty

2ebelin was nowhere to be found in his given

address

'ssue: +hether or not $tty 2ebellin may still be

held liable despite the death of the complainant

eld: 2he court held that $tty 2ebelin may still be

held liable despite the death of the complainant

2he death of a complainant in an administrative

case notwithstanding) the case may still proceed

and be resolved $s in the case of 2udtud v


94/120

#olifores) the court ruled that %2he death of the

complainant herein does not warrant the non-

pursuance of the charges against respondent

Judge 'n administrative cases against publico5cers and employees) the complainants are) in a

real sense) only witnesses ence) the unilateral

decision of a complainant to withdraw from an

administrative complaint) or even his death) as in

the case at bar) does not prevent the #ourt from

imposing sanctions upon the parties sub0ect to itsadministrative supervision& 2his #ourt also nds

respondent) for ignoring the notices of hearing sent

to him at his address which he himself furnished) or

to notify the '@-#@C his new address if indeed he

had moved out of his given address is actuation

betrays his lack of courtesy) his irresponsibility as a

lawyer 2his #ourt faults respondent too for welting

on his manifestation-undertaking to return the

E)BBBBB) not to mention the documents bearing

on the case) to complainant or his heirs 8uch is

reNective of his reckless disregard of the duty

imposed on him by Rule GGBG of the #ode of

rofessional Responsibility: Rule GGBG S $ lawyerwho withdraws or is discharged shall) sub0ect to a

retaining lien) immediately turn over all papers and

property to which the client is entitled) and shall

cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer


95/120

of the matter) including all information necessary

for the proper handling of the matter

2hus) the court suspended $tty Jose $llan "

2ebelin from the practice of law for 2wo >G? "onthsand is ordered to return to complainant(s heirs the

amount of E) BBBBB) with legal interest


96/120

3 J;C!.84 ;,C;. C.D$H ', R.,C.R',!

J;C!".,2 ) $ '/D$2'/, /F R;D. 3B 8.#2'/,


97/120

'ssue: +hether or not respondent be held liable for

undue delay in rendering 0udgment

eld: Respondent is guilty of undue delay inrendering 0udgment 2he records show that the

parties had led their respective position papers as

early as February G) GBBB thus) respondent had

until "arch K) GBBB ad there been circumstances

which presented him from handling down his

decision within the prescribed period) respondentshould have at least re*uested from the #ourt for

an e1tension within which to render 0udgment

Failure to resolve cases submitted for decisions

within the period 1ed by law constitutes serious

violation of $rticle ''') section


98/120

7 #/"D$',28 F/R C'8@$R".,24 F/R"$D

',.82'!$2'/,

".R#.C.8 ,$$ 8 $22H @.,J$"', 8/R/,!/,

$# ,o EKKG January G6) GBBK

Facts: Respondent $tty 8orongon had been the

counsel of complainant "ercedes ,ava for years

2he former informed her of his intention to

withdraw as her counsel in two of her cases due to

a stroke that paraly9ed his right body but proposedto be retained in two other criminal cases with

lesser paper works e led his withdrawal on

Cecember K)


99/120


100/120

parte investigation may only be conducted when

respondent fails to appear despite reasonable

notice


101/120

= $@$,C/,".,2 /F D$+F;D +'F. $,C

"$',2$',',! 'DD'#'2 R.D$2'/,8' $8 !R/;,C

F/R C'8@$R".,2

J/'2$ @;82$"$,2.-$D.J$,CR/ 8 $22H+$RFR.C/ 2/"$8 $D.J$,CR/ and "$R'#R'8

'DD$R',

$# ,o KGE6 February


102/120

2he 'ntegrated @ar of the hilippines >'@?

recommended that both respondents be disbarred

2he 8upreme #ourt ordered $tty $le0andro to be

disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent $tty illarin was returned to the '@ for

further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the

resolution re*uiring comment was never %deemed

served& upon her as it was upon $tty $le0andro

'ssue: +hether or not abandonment of lawful wifeand maintaining an illicit relationship with another

woman are grounds for disbarment

eld: 8u5cient evidence showed that respondent

$tty $le0andro) lawfully married to complainant)

carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent

$tty illarin $lthough the evidence was not

su5cient to prove that he coBntracted a

subse*uent bigamous marriage) that fact remains

of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality

re*uired of him as member of the bar $

disbarment proceeding is warranted against a

lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintainsan illicit relationship with another woman who had

borne him a child +e can do no less in this case

where $tty $le0andro even Ned to another country

to escape the conse*uences of his misconduct


103/120


104/120


105/120

eld: $ lawyer engaged to represent a client in a

case bears the responsibility of protecting the

latter(s interest with utmost diligence @y failing to

le appellant(s brief) respondent was remiss in thedischarge of such responsibility e thus violated

the #ode of rofessional which states:

Rule


106/120

formal substitution of counsel is eected 8ince

respondent had not then withdrawn as counsel as

he in fact led a motion for e1tension of time to le

brief) he was under obligation to discharge hisprofessional responsibility


107/120


108/120

decision was not worth appealing anymore

@esides) it was only several years later that she

complained when no more relief was available to

her $lso) complainant had reasonable opportunityto hire another counsel for a second opinion

whether to appeal from the 0udgment or le a

petition for relief) that he did not commit to handle

his client(s case on appeal and that the testimonies

of complainant and her brother were unpersuasive

2his is also his rst oense


109/120

*. Peo2le of t$e P$ili22ines v. "evilleno

?*> "C!& +

Facts: 'n a criminal case for rape with homicide) theaccused pleaded guilty owever) the I $/

lawyers assigned as counsel de o5cio did not

perform their duty 2he rst did not advise his

client of the conse*uences of pleading guilty) the

second did not cross-e1amine the prosecution

witnesses4 the third postponed the presentation ofevidence for the defense

'ssue: +hether or not the three $/ lawyers

performed their duty

eld: #ase remanded #anon


110/120

+. !odolfo P. ;elas8ue% v. C& = PCIB G! (o.

+,>*>/ June ?*/ +

Facts: $s an incident in the main case) appointedhis counsel as attorney-in-fact to represent him at

the pre-trial #ounsel failed to appear) hence was

declared in default 2he order of default was

received by counsel but no steps were taken to

have it lifted or set aside

'ssue: +hether or not is guilty of negligence

eld: was guilty of negli7gence because after

making the special power of attorney) he went

abroad and paid no further attention to the case

until he received the decision 2hus) no F$". which

will warrant a lifting of the order


111/120

, P!PE!T6 H(DE! 0ITIG&TI(

!egalado Daroy vs. Este1an &1ecia

Facts: Caroy was plainti in a forcible entry

case e hired $becia as his lawyer and won 2o

satisfy the award for damages) a parcel of land of

the defendant was sold to Caroy at an e1ecution

sale 2he land was then sold to Caroy(s relative)

who then sold it to $becia(s wife e now claims

that these sales are void because $becia forged hissignature on the deeds of sale '@ disbarred

$becia

'ssue: +hether or not the disbarment was proper

eld: Reversed 2he evidence shows that Caroywas a party to the sale at the time it was made and

did not %discover& it = years later as he

claimed e was not defrauded the parties 2he

parties made this arrangement to circumvent $rt


112/120

favor) to his attorney was not the sub0ect of the

litigation


113/120

? 3H&0IFIC&TI("

!uferto Gutierre% and 'aritess Passion vs.

Judge Estanislao ". Belan

,> "C!& +

Facts: #oncerned citi9ens of @inan Daguna charged

respondent "2# 0udge with conduct pre0udicial to

the best interest of the service 2hey claim he

committed per0ury for failure to disclose a previous

charge for two criminal oenses in his writtenapplication to the J@#

eld: Judge is dismissed .very prospective

appointee to the 0udiciary must apprise the

appointing authority of every matter bearing on his

tness for 0udicial o5ce) including suchcircumstances as may reNect on his integrity and

probity 2hese are *ualications specically

re*uired of appointees to the 0udiciary by $rticle

''') 8ec 3>I? of the #onstitution 2he act of

concealing the two criminal cases against him is a

clear proof of his lack of the said *ualication and

renders him unworthy to sit as a 0udge- even if he

was ultimately ac*uitted e is not being

chastened for having had a pending criminal case

at the time of his application for a 0udicial position


114/120


115/120

6K· Hnla9ful Conduct

Cleto Docena vs. &tty. Dominador 3. 0imon

, "C!& ,,

Facts: Respondent was petitioner(s lawyer in a civil

case Curing that case) he asked the petitioners to

post a supersedeas bond to stay the e1ecution of

the appealed decision etitioners forwarded the

money to Dimon Dater) the case was decided in

their favor 2hey were unable to recover the moneybecause the clerk of court said no such bond had

ever been led '@ suspended him for one

year ence this petition

eld: Cisbarred Respondent(s allegation that the

money was payment of his fees was overcome by

other evidence 2he law is not a trade nor craft but

a profession 'ts basic ideal is to render public

service and to secure 0ustice for those who seek its

aid @y e1torting money from his client through

deceit) Dimon has sullied the integrity of his

brethren in the law and has indirectly eroded the

people(s condence in the 0udicial system e isdisbarred for immoral) deceitful and unlawful

conduct


116/120

. ;ictor (unga v. &tty. ;erancio ;iray ?*

"C!& >-

Facts: , accused of notari9ing documents without

a commission 't appears that in


117/120

. &tty. Prudencio Penticostes v. Prosecutor

Diosdado I1ae% ?*> "C!& ,-+

Facts: ascual was sued for non-remittance of 888benets 8he gave the contested amount to

respondent) who was supposed to forward the

same to the 888 and drop the charges Respondent

did not forward the amount e only remitted the

amount after his complaint for misconduct was

led with the '@

'ssue: +hether or not respondent acted in

accordance with the Rules of rofessional

Responsibility

eld: R.R'"$,C.C $ high sense of morality)

honesty and fair dealing is e1pected and re*uired

of a member of the bar Rule


118/120


119/120


120/120

attorney(s fees is handling of the case was

sorely inade*uate 8uch award is thus sub0ected to

sound 0udicial discretion and 0udicial control

legal cases digested with highlight

Documents