#47 MALIGAYA VS DORONILLA FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers.

During a hearing, he said we had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him (Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the cases. Do with that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla was then charge of misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of justice. ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of canon 10 of the code of professional responsibility. RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an in court, but also his acts infringed on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. He was suspended from practice of law for two months. MONTEREY VS ARAYATA FACTS: Atty. Arayata drew up in his favor deed of sale of a land, stating therein that the person who executed the document and sold the land to him was his father who is already dead. He appears to Notary public Montoya to legalize said document. However, in the course of investigation, he alleged that it was his uncle who signed the deed of transfer and ratified it before Montoya. ISSUE: WON Atty. Arayatas acts constitute malpractice and unprofessional conduct meriting for him a disciplinary action. RULING: The acts committed by Atty. Arayata relative to the deed of sale and his statements to notary Montoya with regards to said document, constitute malpractice and unprofessional conduct, meriting for him a disciplinary action mitigated by the circumstance the he was the heir and complainant has no direct interest. He was suspended for one month. BEREGUER VS CARRANZA FACTS: Pedro Carranza is a lawyer handling a cadastral case. In the presentation evidence, an affidavit of adjudication and transfer was introduced to prove the property in question to his client. However, the said affidavit has falsehood, it provides that it was executed by his clients mother, making his client as the only heir, when in fact; there are four daughters and their father. He was then charge of deceiving the court. Atty. Carranza contends that he had nothing to do with the affidavit since it was subscribe from Pasay City.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Carranza is liable for discretionary action for not warranting a greater diligence to read the entirety of the affidavit to clear up inconsistencies and doubts. RULING: Even if there be no intent to deceive, Atty. Carranza betrays inatention or carelessness should not be allowed. A lawyers oath is not impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken lightly. Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. Every member of the bar must be on his guard the way he conducts his case or the evidence he presents could conceivably reprimanded and wained. GARCIA VS FRANCISCO FACTS: Garcia with five others leased a parcel of land to Lee for a period of 25 years. Lee refused to vacate after expiration of lease. On the other hand, Lees counsel, Atty. Francisco, commenced various suits to thwarts Garcias right to regain her property. Thus, violating proscription shopping. The latter contends that such remedies are authorized by law. ISSUE: WON Atty. Francisco violated Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility RULING: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the administration justice. Atty. Francisco violated his oath no to delay any man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the court. He was suspended for one year. ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Atty. Paguia, counsel of Estrada, asserts inhibition of the members of Supreme Court from hearing their petition under Rule 5.10 of the code of judicial conduct prohibiting justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity, the justices violated by attending EDDA 2. Atty. Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his clients case within the judicial forum, but has extend it to both broadcast and print media. He did it again despite such warning from the court. ISSUE: WON Atty. Paguia violated Canon 11 of the code of professional responsibility when he has exhibited conduct of unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court. RULING: The SC does not claim infallibility, it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the court but it will not countenance any wrong doing nor allow erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines. Canon 11 mandates lawyer should observe and maintain resect due to the courts and judicial officers

However, Atty. Paguia has continued to make public statements of that seek to impede, obstruct and dispensation of justice. He was indefinitely suspended. LETTER OF UP LAW FACULTY FACTS: The law faculty of UP alleged Justice Del Rosarion, the ponencia of Vinuyavs Executive Secretary, for plagiarism and misrepresentation. The plagiarism centered on Justice Del Rosarios discussion of the principles of jus cogens and ergaomnes. On the other hand, the court contends that they have insulted the court with their imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of polluted sources. ISSUE: WON the criticism made by the UP law faculty are acceptable. RULLING: The right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of criticism revealed at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attacks. Therefore, the court are asking the lawyers to SHOW CAUSE why should not be disciplined. POBRE VS SEN. SANTIAGO FACTS: Sen Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding anomalies for nomination of soon to be vacated position of Chief Justice. To reiterate, she was quoted that she wanted to spit on the face of Chief Justice AremioPanganiban and his cohorts in the SC, and calling the court a Sc of idiots. Pobre believe that those statements reflected a total disrespect. The latter asking Atty./Sen Santiagos disbarment. ISSUE: WON the criticism made by Atty./Sen Santiago cause her a disciplinary action or disbarment. RULING: The court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on her for what otherwise would have constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the court and its members. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deer the court form doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. Basic constitutional consideration dictates this kind of disposition. The letter complaint is dismissed. JARDIN VS ATTY. VILLAR JR. FACTS: Atty. Villar Jr. was the lawyer of Jardin in a Civil Case. However, the said case was dismissed for the lawyers failure to formally offer documentary exhibits despites extensions given by the court. It prejudices his client. This led to this case for disbarment. ISSUE: WON Canon 12 was violated of Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING: Atty. Villar Jr. has fallen short of the competence and diligence required for every member of the Bar. Canon 12 a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of Justice. EGMPC VS CA

FACTS: A case started on 1981 when spouses Seelin filed a complaint against Central Dyeing. RTC and CA decided in favor of the spouses. The lawyer, however, filed different petitions despite said decisions. The case runs for 17 years because of said petitions. ISSUE: WON the lawyer violated Canon 12 - a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. RULING: We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes."As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts." VILLASIS VS CA FACTS: An action for quieting of title with recover of possession and damages by the private respondent was granted by CFI. Petitioner went to the CA, they were given 45 days to submit their brief. However, they have failed to file their brief because of their counsels utter inaction and gross indifference and neglect since receipt of due notice to file it. They have change their counsel but the period of filing brief had already expired. ISSUE: WON Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies, have been violated.

RULING: The appellate court gave them all the time and opportunity to duly prosecute their appeal by filing their brief in the interval to no avail. The appellate court committed no error therefore in dismissing the appeal. Petitioners-appellants have shown no valid and justifiable reason for their inexplicable failure to file their brief and have only themselves to blame for their counsel's utter inaction and grow indifference and neglect in not having filed their brief for a year since receipt of due notice to file the same. COBB-PEREZ VS LANTIN FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed in relation to the observationmade by the court. The court assessed treble costs against the petitioners to be paid by their counsels. Attys. Baizas and Bolinao seekreconsideration of the decision in so far as it r e f l e c t s a d v e r s e l y u p o n t h e i r professional conduct and condemns them to pay the treble costs. court of Appeals rendered judgment sustaining Damaso Perez'p o s i t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e l e v y , t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e d i n g i nterposed alternatingly by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic maneuversexpected to be overthrown by the courts but calculated to delay an execution longoverdue.The petitioners and their counsel chose to attack the execution in a piecemeal fashion causing the postponement of the projected execution sale six times. Perez s p o u s e s a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e i r c o u n s e l s o u g h t t h e i s s u a n c e o f p r e l i m i n a r y injunctions to restrain the execution of the final judgment fromcourts which did not have jurisdiction and which would, as expected, initially orultimately deny their prayer. ISSUE: WON Attys. Baizas and Bolinao used devices to delay the execution of the judgment. RULING Attys. Baizas and Bolinao contends that if there was delay it was because they happened to be more assertive, a quality of lawyers which is not to be condemned. The court replied that a counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candor andhonesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his clients position. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his clients if he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, and then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate.