Hernandez, Danica

JD1-A (Legal Ethics)

Assignment No. 4

Walter T. Young vs. Cesar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno

Llantino and Franlin Q. Susa

Facts:
Respondents Batuegas and Llantino acted as counsels for the
accused on the case of “People vs. Crisanto Aranta, Jr.” They filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the accused has now
surrendered and is within the authorities’ detention. The complainant,
a private prosecutor verified the same with the NBI and found out
that the accused had surrendered on the following day that the
Motion for Bail was filed, December 14, 2000.
The Motion was received by a Clerk of Court, Ms. Pena in
absence of Respondent Susa and noticed that it lacks the Certificate
of Detention while it has to be calendared for December 15, 2000.
The presiding judge however, authorized the calendaring despite the
lack of Certificate of Detention which was expected to be filed before
the actual hearing.
Subsequently, Susa performed the said scheduling. The
complainant alleged that Susa violated the three-day notice rule, the
lack of notice to private complainant and failure to attach Certificate
of Detention. The complainant then filed a disbarment case against
the respondents, on grounds of commission of deliberate falsehood
and violation of Lawyer’s Oath. The respondents denied the
allegations and claimed that filing a Motion for Bail with advanced
date of surrender was done in good faith because they wanted to
ensure that the accused will be in custody on the date of hearing.
 They reasoned out that upon learning that a warrant has been
released for their client, they fetched him on December 13, 2000,
hence the date of surrender, but unfortunately got stuck in traffic
and arrived at the NBI at 2:00 am of the next date. The IBP
conducted an investigation and it is found that the charges against
respondent Susa be abolished due to lack of merit. The
recommendation however, against respondents Batuegas and
Llantino reads suspension as a member of bar for a period of six
months.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents committed deliberate falsehood
and a violation of Lawyer’s Oath.

Ruling:
Yes, the respondents committed deliberate falsehood and a
violation of Lawyer’s Oath.
The Court ruled that the respondents have deliberately
committed falsehood to the system and justice courts, opposing what
was stated in the Lawyer’s Oath. It is unequivocal that what they
have done is of malice, that it is done in anticipation of denial of the
Motion. Truth is the thing separates reasons and excuses.
For reasons are events that happened in good faith and is
beyond control, but excuses on the other hand, are fabricated
phenomena in which to be used as an advantage and is directly
attributed to falsehood and deception. The use of such is
unbecoming of Lawyer’s and unfitting for one who is a member of
the Bar.The fact that the accused have surrendered and is in
detention on date of the hearing for motion does not exonerate
them.
 They have craftily intended to advance the surrender date and
used it to their advantage for if the court is found to have no
jurisdiction over the accused and the motion denied, the person
would not surrender. These acts are orchestrated to mislead the
courts, and this resort to deception contributes to injustice and is
specifically what the courts condemn.
The Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP and ruled
that Batuegas and Llantino be suspended from practice of law for a
period of six months.
Teodoro I. Chavez vs. Atty Escolastico R. Viola

Facts:
The respondent was the counsel for the Alvendias in connection
with a civil case filed sometime in 1966 against the petitioner and
Dela Cruz’s. In connection with this case, the respondent have
alleged the Alvendias as mere lessees or tenants of the land by
Foreshore in Bulacan. In the same year, Congress passed Republic
Act 470, that enunciates that “the parcel of public domain in
foreshore along Manila Bay in Bulacan is closed for sale and
settlement and shall be reserved for communal fishing ground.”
Alvendias’ allegedly leased land was part of the reserve and in
order to secure settlement amidst Republic Act 470, respondent filed
for Amended Application for Original Registration of Title in LRC
stating that the land that is leased by the Alvendias are in fact theirs
and was acquired by a sale from Teresita Vistan, sometime in 1929.
Petitioner contend that respondent filed for Amended Application for
Original Registration of Title despite the knowledge that the land was
in fact not theirs and they are mere lessees of the land as he claimed
on their previous Civil case.

Complainant further contend that the respondent willingly aided

in and consented to the pursuit and prosecution of a false and
unlawful application for land registration, in violation of his oath of
office as a member of the Bar. Chavez then prayed for disbarment or
of another appropriate penalty of the respondent for gross
misconduct and malpractice.

On one hand, Viola alleged that he believed his clients had the
right to apply for the registration of the land; and assuming his
clients did not have any such right, the court where the Application
for Original Registration of Title was filed had not yet passed upon it;
hence, this complaint for disbarment was prematurely filed.
Issue:
Whether or not the Respondent committed falsehood and
malpractice culpable or disbarment and/or other appropriate
penalties.

Ruling:
Yes. The respondent committed falsehood and malpractice
culpable or disbarment and/or other appropriate penalties.
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
“a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts.” The
Court ruled that Viola has been deplorably lacking in the candor
required of him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
In his apparent zeal to secure the title to the property involved for his
clients, he disregarded his overriding duty to the court and to the law
itself. It is imperative that a member of the bar stain in their minds
that their first duty is always to the court and not to his clients.
Lawyers are above all officers of court who sworn to assist the courts
in rendering justice to all and only secondarily are they advocates of
the exclusive interests of their clients.
It is clear to the Court that respondent Viola violated his
lawyer’s oath and as well Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics which provides that "the conduct of the lawyer before the
court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and
fairness." Respondent affirmed that he knew that this land belongs
to the Alvendias for a fact that he validated them from the Bureau of
Land, but this statement, evidently opposed his claims on his
previous case, where he expressly manifested in his statements that
Alvendias are but mere lessees of the land.
 Such contradiction existed and cannot be simply ignored for it
poses injustice and clear display of falsehood and deception used in
advantage to manipulate the law to benefit of the clients. It does not
matter which of the two contradicting statements is the lie, one of
them must surely be and this strengthen the facts that he violated his
oath.
The Court found Viola guilty of committing falsehood in
violation of his lawyer’s oath and of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and resolved to suspend him from the practice of law
for a period of five (5) months.
RE: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior
State Prosecutor

Facts:
Atty. Bagabuyo served as Senior State Prosecutor and is the
prosecutor on “People vs. Luis Bucalon Plaza.” Judge Buyser denied
the Demurrer of Evidence of the accused on grounds of insufficient
evidence presented by the prosecution. According to him, evidence
presented proves the crime of homicide but not the charge of
murder. Furthermore, Judge Buyser have inhibited himself from the
case for the reason of that prosecutor displays harsh insinuation by
aggressively suggesting filing of the motion to fix for bail by the
counsel of the accused. Judge Buyser then described Bagabuyo
”lacking cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate.”
The case was then transferred under Judge Tan who eventually
favored resolution to the Motion to Fix the amount of Bail Bond and
fixed it at P40,000. Bagabuyo filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied for lack of merit. He resorted to pursue the case to the
Court of Appeals. Respondent then exposed the alleged corrupt
Judges and held a press conference, defaming Judge Buyser and
Judge Tan and the court for its decision of affirming bail to the
accused.
He claimed that Buyser found the evidence for murder strong
but have withdrawn for unknown reasons and that Judge Tan did not
know the law and was displaying judicial arrogance. The bouts of the
conference were published by Mindanao Gold Star Daily, a local
newspaper in the province. The respondent and the author of the
article was summoned by the court to explain why they should not be
cited for contempt of court with publication of half clothed lies that
defames court and it credibility.
In the hearing for charge of contempt, the author admits to
publishing but asserts that his only source was the respondent. Upon
asking the respondent on why he did so, he refused to talk about his
reasons and only argued that the interviews were done by virtue of
his freedom of speech granted by the Constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility by holding public interviews theming to
defame the Court and its Judges.

Ruling:
Yes, the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility by holding public interviews theming to defame the
Court and its Judges.
Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only,” however
in this case the respondent resorted to the interviews and public
display of sentiments rather than to rally under the due process of
law. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a
lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and he should insist on similar conduct by others."
The said canon was violated by the respondent when he called
Judge Tan, a ‘majhongero’ and ignorant of the law. In addition, the
act of Bagabuyo was made against Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which
states that "a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.” The Respondent evidently preys on the Court and
its subjects in an uneven ground by making false claims and
intentionally displays them to the public which is unbecoming of
person of dignity, honesty and morals that is expected on a person
who practices law and preaches its standards.
Moreover, the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, as he has
sworn to "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to his clients. Admission to the bar is not a right but a privilege
and such privilege imposes upon them certain regulations. The Court
is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the
rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so,
precisely because respect for the institution must always be
maintained.
Due to the foregoing violations of Bagabuyo, the Court decided
to suspend him for one (1) year with a stern warning, that
commission of the same would result to a graver punishment.
Jorge Montecillo and Quirico Del Mar Vs. Francisco M. Gica
et.al
Facts:
Private respondent filed a complaint for oral defamation against
Montecillo and a case for damages as a result of an alleged slander
committed by the petitioner by calling him "stupid" or a "fool.” The
City Court and the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered judgment
against Gica. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals
which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
and ruled in favor of petitioner Gica on the ground that the
preponderance of evidence favored petitioner Francisco M. Gica on
the principle that positive must prevail over the negative evidence,
and that "some words must have come from Montecillo's lips that
were insulting to Gica.

As counsel for Montecillo, Atty. del Mar moved for a

reconsideration with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code on "knowingly rendering unjust judgment"
and "judgment rendered through negligence", and the alleged that
the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. The appellate
court admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that threats and
abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant
reconsideration. The resolution of the Appellate Court concluded that
counsel del Mar is found guilty of contempt and condemned to pay a
fine of P200.00 and ordered suspended from the practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not, petitioner lawyer is guilty of contempt and
should be disbarred.
Ruling:
Yes, petitioner lawyer is guilty of contempt and should be
disbarred.
 Sec. 20 (b) Rule 138, Rules of Court provides that it is the duty
of all attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
of justice and judicial officers. A lawyer must always remember that
he is an officer of the court exercising a high privilege and serving in
the noble mission of administering justice. As ruled People vs. Carillo,
it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold
the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity,
according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts
guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

The Court emphasized that to be sure, lawyers may come up

with various methods, perhaps much more effective, in calling the
Court's attention to the issues involved. The language vehicle does
not run short of expressions, emphatic but respectful, convincing but
not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. As an officer of the
court, it is his sworn and moral duty as a lawyer to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the
court so essential to the proper administration of justice.

It is manifest that respondent del Mar has scant respect for the
two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged
error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of
both Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust
judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and
malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the
case of his client. Hence, respondent Atty. del Mar, for his
misconduct towards the Supreme Court, shall be suspended from the
practice of law until further orders of this Court.
Jorge Montecillo and Quirico Del Mar Vs. Francisco M. Gica
et.al
Facts:
Private respondent filed a complaint for oral defamation against
Montecillo and a case for damages as a result of an alleged slander
committed by the petitioner by calling him "stupid" or a "fool.” The
City Court and the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered judgment
against Gica. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals
which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
and ruled in favor of petitioner Gica on the ground that the
preponderance of evidence favored petitioner Francisco M. Gica on
the principle that positive must prevail over the negative evidence,
and that "some words must have come from Montecillo's lips that
were insulting to Gica.

As counsel for Montecillo, Atty. del Mar moved for a

reconsideration with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code on "knowingly rendering unjust judgment"
and "judgment rendered through negligence", and the alleged that
the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. The appellate
court admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that threats and
abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant
reconsideration. The resolution of the Appellate Court concluded that
counsel del Mar is found guilty of contempt and condemned to pay a
fine of P200.00 and ordered suspended from the practice of law.

Issue:
Whether or not, petitioner lawyer is guilty of contempt and
should be disbarred.
Ruling:
Yes, petitioner lawyer is guilty of contempt and should be
disbarred.
Sec. 20 (b) Rule 138, Rules of Court provides that it is the duty
of all attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
of justice and judicial officers. A lawyer must always remember that
he is an officer of the court exercising a high privilege and serving in
the noble mission of administering justice. As ruled People vs. Carillo,
it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold
the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity,
according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts
guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

The Court emphasized that to be sure, lawyers may come up

with various methods, perhaps much more effective, in calling the
Court's attention to the issues involved. The language vehicle does
not run short of expressions, emphatic but respectful, convincing but
not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. As an officer of the
court, it is his sworn and moral duty as a lawyer to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the
court so essential to the proper administration of justice.

It is manifest that respondent del Mar has scant respect for the
two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged
error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of
both Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust
judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and
malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the
case of his client. Hence, respondent Atty. del Mar, for his
misconduct towards the Supreme Court, shall be suspended from the
practice of law until further orders of this Court.