0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
37 visualizzazioni5 pagine
Respondent, a lawyer, violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in his representation of a client against a food company. He threatened to publish libelous articles against the company to coerce payment and used the legal dispute to promote his own media platforms. He also made inappropriate public statements about a pending case. His conduct was found to be unlawful, dishonest, deceitful, and a failure to uphold the duties of his profession.
Respondent, a lawyer, violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in his representation of a client against a food company. He threatened to publish libelous articles against the company to coerce payment and used the legal dispute to promote his own media platforms. He also made inappropriate public statements about a pending case. His conduct was found to be unlawful, dishonest, deceitful, and a failure to uphold the duties of his profession.
Respondent, a lawyer, violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in his representation of a client against a food company. He threatened to publish libelous articles against the company to coerce payment and used the legal dispute to promote his own media platforms. He also made inappropriate public statements about a pending case. His conduct was found to be unlawful, dishonest, deceitful, and a failure to uphold the duties of his profession.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE maneuvering reconveyance of clients property to
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE self, etc
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF MORALITY - the extent to which an action is right AND LEGAL PROCESSES. or wrong. An act to be moral must be in Lawyers Oath: agreement with divine reason and conscience in terms of the act itself, the end, and I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will circumstances. maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal orders *Immorality done contrary to justice, honesty, of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, modesty or good morals. The willful, flagrant, nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, shameless indifference to the opinion of the good or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for and respectable members of the society. money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity *Immorality is not confined to sexual conduct. Ex: as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another; this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or delivering bribe money to judge in request of purpose of evasion. So help me God. client.. *Lawyers will be disciplined for disobeying Legal Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Melanio Mauricio, Jr. Orders or processes of Court. AC No. 7199 July 22, 2009 Ex: > Failure to inform SC of answer to appointment Foodsphere, Inc. , complainant in this case is as counsel for an appellant; failure to file corporation engaged in meat processing comment despite several extensions granted; etc. manufacturer and distributor of CDO canned goods and grocery products. Respondent *Lawyer who issued bouncing checks violates the law and is subject to disbarment or Suspension. Atty. Melanio Batas Mauricio is a Violation of BP22 is crime involving Moral writer/columnist of tabloids and a host of turpitude does not relate to exercise of law but television program "Kakampi Mo Ang Batas" and a relates to and affects Good Moral character a radio program Double B Batas ng Bayan. Qualif. Not only a precedent to admission to the On June of 2004, Alberto Cordero and his wife practice of law but must be maintained complained about the quality of the CDO Liver incessantly. This crime also imports deceit and Spread purportedly bought from a grocery in violation of Attorneys Oath and the CPR under Valenzuela City. They found the said Liver spread both he is bound to Obey the laws of the land to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in inside the can. unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Bureau of Food and Drug Admin Laboratory conduct. examination confirmed the presence of parasites *Being a lawyer, one is supposed to be a model in in the Liverspread. BFAD conducted a conciliation the community in so far as respect for the law is hearing on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses concerned. Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from complainant. Foodsphere refused to heed the *The law violated need not be a penal law demand, instead offering to return actual medical *Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude and incidental expenses supported by receipts, (Conduct that is considered contrary to which was in turn turned down. by the Corderos community standards of justice, honesty, or good with threates to bring the matter to the attention morals). Ex. Estafa, bribery, bigamy, seduction, of the media. smuggling, falsification of public document, violation of BP22 Before complainant could file its answer to BFAD, Respondent threatened them to publish articles *Honesty -> lawyers best virtue maligning, discrediting and imputing vicesand *Cases of dishonesty and deceit: misappropriation defects to Foodsphere and its products. of clients funds, false statement under oath, Complainant reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent turned it down with a proposal to settle the matter for >Advise client to observe the law P50,000, P15,000 of which would goto the >Should not promote an organization known to be Corderos and P35,000 to his Batas Foundation. He violating also directed Complainant to place paid the law nor assist it in a scheme which he knows advertisements in his tabloids and radio and is dishonest. television programs. Nor should he allow his services to be engaged by an organization whose members are violating the Foodsphere filed a complaint for disbarment and law, to defend them when they get caught. criminal complaints against Mauricio for libel and threatening to publish libel. Mauricio continuously attacked Foodsphere in his columns and radio and ONG VS. UNTO February 6, 2002 television programs. FACTS: Respondent is the legal counsel of one Nemesia Garganian claiming for the support of the alleged ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated child of the complainant. The complainant the Code of Professional Responsibility. received a demand-letter from the respondent for the aforementioned support. A few days HELD: YES. The acts of the Respondent thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter demontrates a violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno (Agaw), an emissary of Professional Responsibility which mandates of the complainant listing additional financial lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, demands of Ms. Garganian against the dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The IBP complainant along with courses of action that he found he engaged in deceitful conduct by taking would take against the complainant should the advantage of the complaint against CDO to latter fail to comply with his obligation to support advance his interest to obtain funds for his BATAS Ms. Garganian and her son. Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television It was alleged that the real father of Ms. program. Garganians son was the complainants brother and that the complainant merely assumed his He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of brothers obligation to appease Ms. Garganian Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a who was threatening to sue them. When the lawyer shall not make public statements in the complainant did not heed his warning, he media regarding a pending case tending to arouse proceeded with filing a series of criminal and public opinion for or against a party. administrative cases against the complainant, all, Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule however, not having any bearing or connection to 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the cause of his client. which mandate, and by failing to live up to his Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint oath and to comply with the exacting standards of with the Office of the City Fiscal of Dumaguete the legal profession, respondent also violated City against the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and one Albina Ong, for alleged violation of the which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the Retail Trade Nationalization Law and the Anti- integrity and the dignity of the legal profession Dummy Law. In addition, the respondent (Rule 7.03). commenced administrative cases against the Atty. Mauricio was suspended from the practice of complainant before the Bureau of Domestic Trade, law for three years and warned that a repetition of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, the same or similar acts will be dealt with more and the Office of the Solicitor General. According severely. to the complainant, these cases were subsequently denied due course and dismissed by the aforesaid government agencies. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law Records reveal that the respondent offered or at lessening confidence in the legal monetary rewards to anyone who could provide system. him any information against the complainant just so he would have leverage in his actions against The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent the latter. The complainant filed a case for (Ambulance chasing) solicitation of almost any disbarment naming the respondents tactics as kind of legal business as it results to (a) fomenting highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical, of litigation with resulting burdens on the courts constitutingmalpractice of law and conduct and the public, (b) subornation of perjury, (c) gravely unbecoming of a lawyer. mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon manufactured causes of actions, and (d) ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of defrauding of injured persons having proper malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and lawyer. court procedure. RULING: YES. Canon 1 , Rule 1.03 of the Code of Among the unprofessional acts which come within Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer the prohibition include the lawyers (a) shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, volunteering advice to bring lawsuit, except in encourage any suit or proceeding. rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of trust make it his duty to do so; (b) hunting up the Code of Professional Responsibility. It defects in titles or other causes of action and mandates lawyers to represent their clients with informing thereof in order to be employed to bring zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by further commands that a lawyer shall employ seeking out those claims for personal injuries or only fair and honest means to attain the lawful those having any other grounds of action in order objectives of his client and shall not present, to secure them as clients; (c) employing agents or participate or threaten to present unfounded runners for like purposes; (d) paying reward, criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage directly or indirectly, to those who bring or in any case or proceeding. influence the bringing of such cases to his office; (e) remunerating policemen, court or prison The respondents action were malicious as the officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others cases he instituted against the complainant did who may succeed, under the guise of giving not have any bearing or connection to the cause disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the of his client, Ms. Garganian. His actions counter criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt others, to seek professional services; (f) searching motive or interest, encourage any suit or for unknown heirs and soliciting their employment proceeding and he shall not do any act designed of him; (g) initiating a meeting of the members of primarily to solicit legal business. club and inducing them to organize and contest The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin legislation under his guidance; (h) purchasing lawyers to act with the highest standards of notes to collect them by litigation at a profit; (i) truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or employment; and (j) agreeing with a purchaser of suspended for any misconduct, whether in his future interests to invest therein in consideration professional or private capacity. Public confidence of his services in law and lawyers may be eroded by the Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his irresponsible and improper conduct of a member clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and if it will admit of a fair settlement. comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the *Lawyer should not be an instigator of controversy legal profession. Respondent is suspended from but a mediator for concord and conciliator for the practice of law for a period of five (5) months compromise and sternly warned that a repetition of the same A litigation involves time, expense and ill feelings, or similar act will be dealt with more severely. which may well be avoided by the settlement of Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any the action. And in those clearly unmeritorious corrupt motive or interest, encourage any cases, a compromise or even a confession of suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. judgment will accord respect to the just claim of the other party, save the client additional expenses and help prevent clogging of the docket. NATURE OF COMPROMISE is such that a party and render judgments in several criminal and must give up some of the rights he has in civilcases pending in his sala. Immediately after consideration of the same act on the part of the the audit, Respondent Judge gave hisexplanation other side. and resolved undecided cases. *Lawyer cannot compromise case w/o clients On August 21, 2002, during the pendency of this consent case, respondent compulsorily retired from service. He manifested that he has fully complied with all matters reported in the judicial audit and requested that the administrative case at bar be considered close and terminated. On January 16, 2002, the Court resolved to release respondents retirement benefits, withholding therefrom the amount of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00) pending the resolution of three (3) other administrative cases against him. ISSUE - Whether or not Respondent Judge be acquitted of administrative liability in viewof his retirement and compliance with the OCA audit report. RULING: - Respondent Judge should NOT be acquitted of administrative liability inview of his retirement and compliance with the OCA audit report. After a carefulevaluation of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the Investigating Justicethat the reasons cited by Respondent for failing to promptly act on and decide theaforecited cases are insufficient. It must be noted that Respondent exerted effort tocomply with his official duties and act on the numerous cases pending in his sala onlyafter his office was audited by a team from the OCA. It bears to stress that the Court iscognizant of the predicament of judges in rendering decisions on cases, especiallythose that involve complex questions of facts or law. Almost always, their situation iscompounded by heavy caseloads which may at times make the allotted period to decidethe cases insufficient. Hence, the Court allows a certain degree of latitude to judges andgrants them a reasonable extension of time to OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. resolve cases upon proper application bythe judge HON. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN concerned and on meritorious grounds. In the A.M. No. RTJ-01-1646 March 11, 2003 case at bar, respondent couldhave requested for a reasonable extension of time to decide the cases pending beforehis sala but he did not. For failure FACTS:From April 10 to 11, 2000, a team from to do so, respondent should be held accountable. the Office of the Court Administratorconducted a For incurring delay in rendering the decision on judicial audit of the RTC Branch 29 in Bislig City, the cases assigned to him which constitutes a less Surigao del Sur of which Respondent Francisco serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the C. Joven was the Presiding Judge. The team Rules of Court, as amended, respondent who was reported thatResponent Judge failed to act upon compulsorily retired from service as of August 21, 2001 may be penalized with a fine of not less than Respondent Judge FRANCISO C. JOVEN was fined P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. ten thousand five hundred pesos (P10,500.00) to be taken from his retirement benefits.
Kenneth Dean Austin v. Howard Ray, Warden, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center and Attorney General of The State of Oklahoma, 124 F.3d 216, 10th Cir. (1997)