January 2012 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Ramon G. Songco Posted in Legal Ethics
Here are selected January 2012 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:
Attorney; accounting of funds. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular
purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for
its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to
return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his clients
funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His failure to return the clients money upon demand
gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation
of the trust reposed in him by the client. The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been
drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him,
shows lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and
constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. Hector Trenas vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 195002.
January 25, 2012.
Attorney; mistake of counsel. The general rule is that the mistake of a counsel binds the client, and it is only in
instances wherein the negligence is so gross or palpable that courts must step in to grant relief to the aggrieved
client. It can be gleaned from the circumstances that petitioner was given opportunities to defend his case and
was granted concomitant reliefs by the court. Thus, it cannot be said that the mistake and negligence of his
former counsel were so gross and palpable to have deprived him of due process. Cresencio C. Milla vs. People
of the Philippines and Carlo V. Lopez. G.R. No. 188726. January 25, 2012.
Court personnel; dishonesty. Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness
and honesty. Like any public servant, she must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in
the performance of her official duties but in her personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the
courts good name and standing. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and
otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court personnel
have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and
private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice. Under Section
52(A)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty is a grave offense
punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Under Section 58 of the same rules, dismissal carries with it
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in
the government service. Thus, the respondent is dismissed for dishonesty when she made someone take the
Civil Service Sub-professional Examination on her behalf. Concerned Citizen vs. Domingo Nawen Abad,
etc. A.M. No. P-11-2907. January 31, 2012.
Court personnel; grave abuse of authority. By the very nature of his duties, a sheriff performs a very sensitive
function in the dispensation of justice. He is duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the implementation
of writs of execution, and should, at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his
duties. Administrative Circular No. 12 was promulgated in order to streamline the service and execution of
court writs and processes in courts and to better serve the public good and facilitate the administration of
justice. Paragraph 2 of Administrative Circular No. 12 provides that All Clerks of Court of the Metropolitan
Trial Court and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and/or their deputy sheriffs shall serve all court processes and
execute all writs of their respective courts within their territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, paragraph 5 of the
same circular provides that No sheriff or deputy sheriff shall execute a court writ outside his territorial
jurisdiction without first notifying in writing, and seeking the assistance of, the sheriff of the place where the
execution shall take place. It is clear that respondents act of implementing the subject writs in San Fernando
City, when his territorial jurisdiction is confined only to Angeles City, is a violation of the Circular and
tantamount to abuse of authority. While respondent claimed that he personally informed the OCC of San
Fernando City, he, however, failed to prove that he made written notice as required by Administrative Circular
No. 12. A mere submission of the copies of the court processes to the OCC will not suffice as to the written
notice requirement. The requirement of notice is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play. It frowns
upon arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the execution of an otherwise legitimate act.Luis P. Pineda vs.
Neil T. torres, sheriff II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Angeles City. A.M. No. P-12-3027.
January 30, 2012
Court personnel; gross neglect of duty. A clerk of court performs a very delicate function as the custodian of
the funds and revenues, records, property, and premises of the court. He is liable for any loss, shortage,
destruction, or impairment of said funds and property. Even the undue delay in the remittance of amounts
collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance. The safekeeping of funds and collections is
essential to the goal of an orderly administration of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the
mandatory nature of the Circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds. Supreme
Court Circular No. 13-92 mandates that all fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of
Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depository bank which is the Land Bank
of the Philippines. The respondents failure to remit their collection constitutes gross neglect of duty,
dishonesty, and grave misconduct. Moreover, the failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an
authorized officer shall be prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property
to personal use. Re: Report on Financial Audit Conducted at MCTC, Santiago-San Esteban, Ilocos Sur. A.M.
No. P-11-2950. January 17, 2012
Judges; administrative liability. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions brought against any judge in
relation to the performance of his official functions are neither complementary to nor suppletory of appropriate
judicial remedies, nor a substitute for such remedies. Any party who may feel aggrieved should resort to these
remedies, and exhaust them, instead of resorting to disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions. A judges
failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily incur
administrative liability, for to hold him administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he
renders, assuming he has erred, will be nothing short of harassment and will make his position doubly
unbearable. His judicial office will then be rendered untenable, because no one called upon to try the facts or to
interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. Administrative
sanction and criminal liability should be imposed only when the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or
is committed with evident bad faith, or only in clear cases of violations by him of the standards and norms of
propriety and good behavior prescribed by law and the rules of procedure, or fixed and defined by pertinent
jurisprudence. Re: Verified complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board/CEO etc. against
Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., et al. A.M. No. 11-184-CA-J. January 31, 2012.
Judges; court personnel; gross misconduct; neglect of duty. Respondent Judge failed to exert due diligence
required of him to ascertain the facts of the case before he came out with the Order. He should be reminded of
his personal responsibility in the making of his decisions and orders. He should not rely on anybody else for
the examination and study of the records to properly ascertain the facts of each case that he handles. He cannot
simply pass the blame on his staff and hide behind the incompetence of his subordinates. Moreover,
respondent Judge should have been more cautious since the case involved was an old inherited case with
voluminous records and what was sought to be executed was an order issued almost twenty (20) years ago. It is
incumbent upon him to devise an efficient court management system since he is the one directly responsible
for the proper discharge of his functions. Although judges cannot be held to account for erroneous judgments
rendered in good faith, good faith in situations of infallible discretion inheres only within the parameters of
tolerable judgment and does not apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principle evident
and basic as to be beyond permissible margins of error.
The records and pleadings filed have established the administrative liability of the clerk of court. First,
respondent Clerk of Court failed to inform respondent Judge of the existence of the Court of Appeals and
Supreme Court decisions. Second, he failed to inform and send the parties their respective notices and court
orders. Third, he issued the Certificate of Finality without verifying if indeed a motion for reconsideration was
filed in connection with the case. As custodian of judicial records, it is incumbent upon the clerk of court to
ensure an orderly and efficient court management system, and to supervise the personnel under his office to
function effectively. They must be assiduous in performing official duty and in supervising and managing
court dockets and records. It is also incumbent upon him to see to it that court orders were sent with dispatch to
the parties concerned. Thus, respondent Clerk of Court should ensure an orderly and efficient record
management system to assist all personnel, including respondent Judge, in the performance of their respective
duties. Espina and Madarang Company, et al. vs. Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj and Abie M. Amilil, Officer-in-
charge, branch Clerk of Court, both of theRegional Trial Court, Br. 14, Cotabato City.A.M. No. RTJ-07-
2069. December 14, 2011.