LEGWRIT NOTES Apr 28

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CANON 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel.

Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language, which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of the decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

CANON 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the Courts.

GIMENO v ZAIDE

Gimeno was Atty. Zaide’s former client, engaging the services of ZMZ law firm.
Gimeno charges Atty. Zaide with usurpation of notary public’s office, falsification,
violation of lawyer-client trust, and use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive
language. Gimeno alleges that Atty. Zaide called her a person “suffering from serious
mental incompetence,” using offensive language.

IBP Commissioner found Atty. Zaide guilty for using abusive and insulting language
in his pleadings.

Held: The prohibition aainst offensive language is based on the CPR. Court cites
Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Canon 11, and Rule 11.03.

Atty. Zaide called Gimeno a “notorious extortionist” and suffering from “serious
mental incompetence.” More particularly, Atty. Zaide said:

Her declaration in Public put a shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION

in the whole Justice System, and the Department of Justice in particular, where the
taxpayers paid for her salary over her incompetence and poor performance as
a prosecutor... This is a clear manifestation that the Public prosecutor suffers
serious mental incompetence as regard her mandate as an Assistant City
Prosecutor.35 (emphasis supplied)

Atty. Zaide’s choice of words is unbecoming of an officer of the court. A lawyer is

entitled to present is case vigorously but not offensively. In keeping with the dignity
of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.

Guilty. Disqualified as notary public for 2 years. Suspended from legal practice for 1
year.

SABERON v LARONG

Saberon filed a case against Atty. Larong’s client. Atty. In an Answer by Atty. Larong,
he called the charges as “a series of blackmail suits” filed by Saberon for financial
gain. Saberon found the aforementioned as malicious and bereft of basis. Saberon
charges Atty. Larong of grave misconduct for using abusive and offensive language.

IBP Commissioner held that the word "blackmail" connotes something sinister and
criminal. Unless the person accused thereof is criminally charged with extortion, it
would be imprudent and offensive to characterize such person. IBP Board of
Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit.

Held:

Atty. Larong is guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his
pleadings. Court cites Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Canon 11, and Rule 11.03. A lawyer is
entitled to present is case vigorously but not offensively. In keeping with the dignity
of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.

It does not matter that the malicious statements of Atty. Lerong were made before
the BSP and not before a court. He is nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an
oath-bound servant of the law

NG v ALAR

Atty. Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed with the Labor
Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. On appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the
dismissal. In his Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty.
Alar used improper and abusive language full of attacks against the Labor Arbiter
and the Ponente of the NLRC decision. Ng, one of the respondents, filed to disbar
Alar before the IBP for such misbehavior.
Alar contends that the Rules of Court and Code of Professional Responsibility only
applies suppletorily at the NLRC, that the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision
on disciplinary matters for lawyers appearing before it, and that NLRC Rules of
Procedure provides for adequate sanctions against misbehaving lawyers.

Alar asserts that the ROC/CPC does not apply to lawyers practicing at the NLRC, the
latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC Commissioners are not judges.

Issue: WON a lawyer’s misbehavior before the NLRC is susceptible of the provisions
of the CPC?

Held: YES. Untenable assertions. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that the
lawyer must remember that in addressing the NLRC, the lawyer still remains a
member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice and proper observation of law and ethics.

ADEAZ REALTY v CA

In Resolution of 14 August 1992, Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Order to Atty.
Dacanay. Show Cause Order: why he should not be disciplined for inserting and
modifying factual findings of the CA in a pleading.

Atty. Dacanay says that he merely dictates to his secretary portions of decisions to
be quoted and to copy them in the pleadings. In this case, words were copied from a
CA decision but words were intercalated in a paragraph. He explains that he had
more important cases to deal with at the time. However, he does not condone the
mistake and feels upset.

Held: The contention that the secretary made the mistake is unsatisfactory. The
court already addressed the “passing-the-buck” stance in previous jurisprudence.
Adaza case: Lawyers commonly use secretaries or clerks as alibis in delays of filing
court documents. Lawyers cannot do this to hide their own negligence.

Atty. Dacanay is no better, maybe even worse. How could the secretary have
written the phrase "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez
Realty," without Atty. Dacanay dictating it word for word?

Lawyers are tasked to review their pleadings, more particularly the quoted parts to
ensure accuracy and faithfulness to the citation. The legal profession demands this.
The phrase was inserted in the proper place, making it unlikely to have been
inserted unintentionally, innocently, or by a secretary.

Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision constitutes willful

disregard of the lawyer's solemn duty to act at all times in manner consistent with
the truth. A lawyer should never venture to mislead the court by false statements or
quotations of facts or laws.

DISBARRED.

HEUYSUWAN-FLORIDO v FLORIDO

Natasha Heysuwan-Florido (Natasha) is Atty. Florido’s estranged spouse. They have

two children. Natasha filed for annulment. Atty. Florido went to Natasha’s residence
and demanded custody of the two children. Atty. Florido showed an alleged CA
Resolution copy supposedly granting custody. Natasha called her lawyers, who told
her they have not received notice of any motion for custody by Atty. Florido.
Natasha asked for an Original of the CA Resolution but Atty. Florido failed to give it
to her. Natasha refused to surrender custody. After some time, Atty. Florido
returned to Natasha’s residence with armed men and demanded custody of the
children. Atty. Florido filed with RTC for a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right
to custody, on the basis of CA Resolution. Natasha verified from CA that no such CA
Resolution exists. Natasha filed this complaint for manufacturing CA Resolution.

Held: Lawyers are expected to defend their cases but not at the expense of truth.
Court cites Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02. Atty. Florido also used offensive
language. 2 year suspension.

MANAHAN v FLORES

Atty. Flores was the counsel of Balmores in a civil case presided by Judge Manahan.
During the case, Judge Manahan issued an Order wherein she voluntarily inhibited
from hearing the case. Said Order mentions Atty. Flores, his unethical actuations,
dishonesty, and discourtesy. Atty. Flores was required to submit his Pre-Trial brief.
At first, he failed to show proof of his MCLE compliance. Thereafter, Atty. Flores filed
his Pre-Trial brief with an MCLE number that was merely superimposed without
date and place of compliance.

In Atty. Flores’s manifestation, he stated the following allegations against Judge

Manahan:

4. When you took your oath as member of the Bar, you promised to serve truth,
justice and fair play. Do you think you are being truthful, just and fair by serving a
cheater?

5. Ignorance of the law excuses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted by
the Sandiganbayan. But even worse is a lawyer who violates the law.
6. Last but not the least, God said Thou shall not lie. Again the Philippine
Constitution commands: Give every Filipino his due. The act of refusal by the
plaintiff is violative of the foregoing divine and human laws.

Held: Atty. Flores failed to obey RTC order to submit proof of MCLE compliance. He
also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. SC cites Rule 11.03 of Canon
11. P5k and warning.

TIONGCO v AGUILAR

Atty. Tiongco accuses the Supreme Court for not reading the petition. According to
Tiongco:

“Truly, it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition
and the annexes attached thereto and hold that the same has "failed to
sufficiently show that the respondent Court had committed a grave abuse of
discretion in rendering the questioned judgment.”

According to the Court, the accusation is unfounded and malicious. Court cites
Canon 11 of CPR.

Intemperate language is also used such as:

The decision being crafted “in order to fool the winning party.”
As a “hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs' favor”
One “you could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated it”
Or one with “perfidious character”
Judge was “confused, confusion being a natural product of having been born and
brought up amongst the crowded surroundings of the non-propertied class”
Describing the judge as “"liar," "perjurer," or "blasphemer."

Atty. Tiongco sent a Compliance. He did not show cause. His Compliance is
unacceptable for the following reasons:
First, He impliedly admitted that his accusation that the Court did not read his
petition is false
Second, except as to the words "liar," "thief," "perfidious'" and "blasphemer," he
failed to address squarely the other intemperate words he used, which failure
amounts to an admission of their intemperateness
Third, he did not indicate the circumstances upon which his defense of truth lies;
Fourth, he miserably failed to show the relevance of the harsh words

The right to criticize, as guaranteed by the freedom of speech clause in the Bill of
Rights, must be exercised responsibly. A lawyer is free to criticize but should be
respectful to the Courts. Atty. Tiongco exceeded the bounds of decency.
TAMBUNTING v CA

Indeed, in the MR, counsels for petitioner describe Respondent Judge’s allegedly
erroneous assumptions as "unparalleled for sheer malevolence". Furthermore,
Petitioner’s lawyers said: "Petitioner's counsel, citing the above proceedings,
contested the trial judge's baseless, nay despotic attempt to muzzle his right to be
heard in his defense . . ." The trial judge's actions were also branded as an "obviously
unholy rush to do petitioner in . . ."

In an Urgent Motion, respondent judge is alleged to have: (1) "generated belief of his
being under contract to do the prosecution's bidding;" (2) "evinced contempt for
Supreme Court case law;" and (3) "dishonored his judicial oath and duty to hear
before he condemns, proceed upon inquiry, and render judgment on a man's liberty
only after a full trial of the facts."

SC cites Canon 11 and Rule 11.03. Lawyers may use strong language to pursue their
duty, but may not malign the courts. P500 fine with warning.

YARED v ILARDE

Respondent’s counsel employed improper and unethical language. He called

Petitioner’s counsel as “a rambunctious wrestler-type female of 52 who does not
wear a dress which is not red, and who stampedes into the courtroom like a mad
fury and who speaks slang English to conceal her faulty grammar,”is “impelled by
less than less than noble reasons in serving as counsel for petitioner. Her ulterior
motive? "To please and tenderize and sweeten towards her own self the readily
available Carmelo M. Tiongco," a retired police major described by respondent
Tiongco as Atty. Deguma's "nio bonito," an unmarried mestizo with curly hair who
lives with plaintiff for being houseless who rents a place on the subject property
sought to be recovered by petitioner.

Atty. Deguma, apparently are unmarried maiden of a certain age, is variously

described by respondent Tiongco as "a love-crazed female Apache [who] is now
ready to skin defendant alive for not being a bastard,"and a "horned spinster and
man-hungry virago and female bull of an Amazon who would stop at nothing to
molest, harrass (sic) and injure defendant - if only to please and attract police-major
Carmelo Tiongco Junior - the deeply desired object of her unreciprocated affections -
who happens not to miss every chance to laugh at her behind her back."
He claims that Atty. Deguma, a lawyer with the Public Attorney's Office, is engaged
in a “game of one-upmanship with a fellow employee,” in that "she happens to be
ambitious enough to secretly (that what she thought) plot to put one over her office-
mate who simply netted a corporal (if not a private) by aiming at no lest than an
IMDC major - hoping to catch him by sheer brass and audacity. In so doing, Atty.
Deguma is using the PAO as a "marriage bureau for her own benefit.” Respondent
Tiongco predicts that nothing good will come out of opposing counsel's scheme
since, quoting Voltaire, "outside of virtue, ther's (sic) no happiness.”

Respondent Tiongco has achieved a remarkable feat of character assassination.

SC cites Canon 8, Rule 8.01, and Rule 11.03. Lawyers words are allowed latitude to
further his arguments but must be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel.