Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Maligaya Vs Doronilla

    Uploaded by

    Earnswell Pacina Tan
    Atty. Doronilla, representing Dr. Maligaya in a civil case against military officers, uttered a false statement in court. When asked to substantiate his statement in writing, he failed to do so. Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla with the IBP for misleading the court. The IBP found Atty. Doronilla guilty of stating a falsehood and recommended a 3-month suspension from military service. The Supreme Court did not agree with suspending him from military service, as this was an administrative case regarding his liability as a lawyer. However, due to his unrepentant attitude, the Supreme Court suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months, warning of more

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maligaya Vs Doronilla

    Uploaded by

    Earnswell Pacina Tan
    1K views1 page
    Atty. Doronilla, representing Dr. Maligaya in a civil case against military officers, uttered a false statement in court. When asked to substantiate his statement in writing, he failed to do so. Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla with the IBP for misleading the court. The IBP found Atty. Doronilla guilty of stating a falsehood and recommended a 3-month suspension from military service. The Supreme Court did not agree with suspending him from military service, as this was an administrative case regarding his liability as a lawyer. However, due to his unrepentant attitude, the Supreme Court suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months, warning of more

    Original Description:

    12. Maligaya vs Doronilla

    Original Title

    12. Maligaya vs Doronilla

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Doronilla, representing Dr. Maligaya in a civil case against military officers, uttered a false statement in court. When asked to substantiate his statement in writing, he failed to do so. Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla with the IBP for misleading the court. The IBP found Atty. Doronilla guilty of stating a falsehood and recommended a 3-month suspension from military service. The Supreme Court did not agree with suspending him from military service, as this was an administrative case regarding his liability as a lawyer. However, due to his unrepentant attitude, the Supreme Court suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months, warning of more

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Maligaya Vs Doronilla

    Uploaded by

    Earnswell Pacina Tan
    Atty. Doronilla, representing Dr. Maligaya in a civil case against military officers, uttered a false statement in court. When asked to substantiate his statement in writing, he failed to do so. Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla with the IBP for misleading the court. The IBP found Atty. Doronilla guilty of stating a falsehood and recommended a 3-month suspension from military service. The Supreme Court did not agree with suspending him from military service, as this was an administrative case regarding his liability as a lawyer. However, due to his unrepentant attitude, the Supreme Court suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months, warning of more

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MALIGAYA vs DORONILLA

    FACTS:
    Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate Generals Service is charged of
    unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in open court during a hearing in a civil case.
    Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel complainant Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and retired
    colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military officers for damages. At
    one point during hearing of the case, Atty. Doronilla uttered a false statements in open court
    during a hearing in a civil case. Considering this to be of some consequence, presiding Judge
    Reynaldo B. Daway asked a number of clarificatory questions and thereafter ordered Atty.
    Doronilla to put his statements in writing and file the appropriate pleading. Weeks passed but
    Atty. Doronilla submitted no such pleading or anything else to substantiate his averments.
    Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
    (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. The complaint, which charged Atty. Doronilla with
    misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of justice, was
    referred to a commissioner for investigation. Complainant swore before the investigating
    commissioner that he had never entered into any agreement to withdraw his lawsuits.
    IBP recommended that Atty. Doronilla is guilty of purposely stating a falsehood in violation
    of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be
    suspended from the government military service as legal officer for a period of three months.
    This was adopted and approved in toto by the IBP Board of Governors on August 30, 2003.[14]
    There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as officers of the court,
    participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth
    and honor
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent violated Canon 10 specifically Rule 10.01 of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility?
    RULING:
    Respondent violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
    any in court, of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every
    lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
    statement of fact or law.
    The SC did not agree with the suspension of Atty Doronilla by the IBP. SCs suspension
    means only suspension from the practice of law. After all, the only purpose of this administrative
    case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability
    as a legal officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper for the Court to order, as a
    penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyers oath, his suspension from employment in
    the Judge Advocate Generals Service.
    Nonetheless, respondents unrepentant attitude throughout the conduct of this
    administrative case tells us that a mere slap on the wrist is definitely not enough. Atty. Doronilla,
    it seems, needs time away from the practice of law to recognize his error and to purge himself of
    the misbegotten notion that an effort to compromise justifies the sacrifice of truthfulness in
    court.
    WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
    for TWO MONTHS. He was WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct shall be
    dealt with more severely.

    You might also like