Sei sulla pagina 1di 2


Canon 10 (dela Cruz)

A motion for reconsideration was filed in relation to the observation1 made by the
court in its decision dated May 22, 1968. The court assessed treble costs against the petitioners to be paid by their counsels. Attys. Baizas and Bolinao seek reconsideration of
the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their professional conduct and condemns them to pay the treble costs.
November 5, 1962 - Court of Appeals rendered judgment sustaining Damaso Perez' position with respect to the extent of the levy, the subsequent proceedings interposed
alternatingly by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic maneuvers expected to be overthrown by the courts but calculated to delay an execution long overdue.
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 spouses as
represented by their counsel sought the issuance of preliminary injunctions to restrain the execution of the final judgment in civil case 39407 from courts which did not have
jurisdiction and which would, as expected, initially or ultimately deny their prayer.
Issue: WON Attys. Baizas and Bolinao used devices to delay the execution of the
judgment? YES
Mrs. Perez and her counsel, knew or ought to have known beforehand that the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ which Mrs. Perez
herself sought, and, anticipating the recall of the writ improvidently issued, on September 3, 1963, a month before the said writ was actually lifted, filed in the basic civil case
39407 an urgent motion to lift the writ of execution issued on August 15, 1961, alleging as justification the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock and the personal nature
of Damaso Perez' judgment debt, the very same reasons advanced in civil case 7532 which was then still pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
The circumstances relative to the motion for reconsideration clearly negates the avowal of the movants that "in none of the various incidents in the case at bar has any
particular counsel of petitioners acted with deliberate aforethought to delay the enforcement of the judgment in Civil Case No. 39407." The Perez spouses, coached by their
counsels, had sallied forth on a strategem of "remedies" projected to foil the lawful execution of a simple money judgment.
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 candour and honesty 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 client's position. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his clients if he he finds that his client's cause is
defenseless, 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.
Decision: Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, Jr. shall pay jointly and severally the
treble costs assessed against the petitioners
Prepared by: Daniel Julius M. dela Cruz
Afurong v. Aquino
315 SCRA 77 September 23, 1999
Paraluman B. Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment against Victorino Flores for nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Paraluman
Afurong and the court issued a writ of execution. Facing eviction, Flores sought help from Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case. He
filed two petitions. When the court set a pre-trial, he filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and indicated the address of Citizens
Legal Assistance Office as his office address notwithstanding the fact that he was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated
that he could not attend the pre-trial conference because he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day
and hour. But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on the aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing.
Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for filing frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final decision, committing
falsehood in an Urgent Motion for Postponement, and misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office Atty. Aquino denied the charges against
him and contended that such acts had been done without malice. In a Reply, complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of contempt of court and
correspondingly fined by this Court for making false allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a Report finding that
Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time
of the commission of the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6 months suspension Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report
and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
WON Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the
time of the commission of the acts in question
The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment.
Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the same day as the pre-
trial of the Civil Case. Such act violates the Canons of Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated
not to mislead the court in any manner.
Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, in
violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said office.
The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G. Aquino guilty of malpractice and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for six (6) months commencing upon receipt of notice

CANON 12 (Garcia) (Irereport)

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2045 : January 19,

FACTS: On April 25 to May 14, 2005, a judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 22, presided over by respondent
Judge Harun B. Ismael.
The judicial audit resulted in the issuance of a memorandum dated June 9, 2005 by the Office of Court Administrator (OCA)1cralaw directing respondent to explain his failure to
decide and act on current and inherited cases, as well as to resolve incidents in various cases pending before him, within the reglementary period provided by
law.2cralaw Respondent was likewise directed to inform the OCA if cases already submitted for decision or resolution had in fact been decided or resolved within the
reglementary period.3cralaw
Consequently, respondent was ordered to immediately cease hearing cases in his sala and confine himself to deciding or resolving cases submitted for decision or resolution. In
respondents stead, Judge Edilberto G. Absin was directed to handle active cases, other than cases submitted for decision, until respondent could comply with the directives or
until he retired.
The OCA likewise directed Atty. Insor A. Pantaran to explain the results of the audit, as was required of respondent. Atty. Pantaran was the clerk of court of the RTC of Pagadian,
Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 22 during respondents tenure. Atty. Pantaran complied with the June 9, 2005 memorandum in a letter dated May 19, 2006.4cralaw
In its memorandum dated February 26, 2007,5cralaw the OCA noted that respondent failed to fully comply with its directives in the June 9, 2005 memorandum. Neither did he
ask for extensions of time within which to comply with the subject directives.
On examination of Atty. Pantarans May 19, 2006 letter/compliance, the OCA found that respondent had partially complied with the directives of the June 9, 2005 memorandum,
having already decided or resolved some of the cases he was directed to act on. Nonetheless, the OCA established that respondent committed gross inefficiency when he unduly
delayed actions in a huge number of cases. The OCA recommended that respondent be finedP20,000. Furthermore, the OCA recommended that Judge Absin be directed to
decide and resolve the cases pending in respondents sala. The OCA likewise directed the designation of Judge Loreto C. Quinto6cralaw as assisting judge.
The factual findings of the OCA are well-taken. However, we vary the penalty imposed in the light of the circumstances of the case.
It is settled that failure to decide or resolve cases within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency7cralaw and is not excusable. It is a less serious charge8cralaw and
is punishable by either suspension from office without salaries and benefits for not less than one month but not more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not
exceeding P20,000.9
The New Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness.10cralaw Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code11cralawadmonishes all judges to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases12cralaw within the period
specified in Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII of the Constitution.13cralaw
We emphasize that the administration of justice is a joint responsibility of the judge and the lawyer.14cralaw As aptly held in Salvador v. Judge Limsiaco:15
A judges foremost consideration is the administration of justice. Thus, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. xxx Failure to comply within the mandated period
constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. It also undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary,
lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. Decision making, among other duties, is the most important duty of a member of the bench. (citations omitted)
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,16cralaw this administrative case against respondent shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the
bar.17cralaw Violation of the basic tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and the Code of Judicial Conduct
constitutes a breach of Canons 118cralaw and 1219cralaw as well as Rules 1.0320cralaw and 12.0421cralaw of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

HELD: respondent Judge Harun B. Ismael is hereby found GUILTY of gross inefficiency and violation of Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary for which he is FINED in the amount of P20,000.

RATIO: Respondent is found GUILTY of violation of Canons 1 and 12 as well as Rules 1.03, 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is FINED in the
amount of P10,000. Since he delayed and did not adhere to the speedy administration of Justice and did not act in his capacity as a judge to decide on the cases he is guilty for
violating canon 12.


Cruz v. Salva
105 SCRA 1151 (July 25, 1959)

Timoteo Cruz filed this suit against Pasay City Fiscal Francisco Salva to restrain the latter from continuing with the preliminary injunction with the murder of a Manuel Monroy.
A number of persons were initially linked to the Monroy murder, and these persons were subsequently found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Pasay. President
Magsaysay then ordered a reinvestigation of the case. Agents of the Philippine Constabulary and investigators of the Malacaang conducted the investigation and found other
persons linked to the crime, other than those convicted.
Counsel for the previous convicts wrote for a reinvestigation based on the findings of the Philippine Constabulary. The Secretary of Justice then decided to have the results
made available and the Fiscals office formed a committee of 3 to conduct a reinvestigation.
Timoteo Cruz was subpoenaed to testify upon oath to a certain criminal investigation. He asked for a transfer, for his counsel is out of town. His counsel subsequently
questioned the jurisdiction of the committee as the case was pending in the Supreme Court. The results of the Philippine Constabulary investigation pointed to Cruz as the main
instigator of the murder.
Salva contends that if he subpoenaed Cruz, it was because Cruz requested to allow him to appear and present his own witness.
The reinvestigation, however, was conducted not in Salvas office but in the Municipal Courts session hall, to accommodate the big crowd who wants to witness the
proceeding. Members of the press were present, and were even allowed to ask questions. Salva was willing to adopt the questions as the committees.

Whether Salvas conduct of the investigation merits a sanction from court (Yes, Salva is publicly reprimanded and censured)

Though the court agreed with Salva that he was warranted in holding the preliminary investigation, the court also said that he may not compel Cruz to attend if he does not
want to.
The court was greatly disappointed and annoyed by the publicity and sensationalism regarding the investigation. He committed a grievous error and poor judgment for which
the court failed to find any satisfactory explanation. His actuations went beyond the bounds of prudence, discretion and good taste. When such publicity and sensationalism is
allowed, the whole thing becomes inexcusable even repugnant, and in the interest of justice, is constrained to put an end to it.